Catholic Q&A Continues

[pat]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I think your missing the point of it’s purpose. It’s not to lord it’s authority over the reader, it’s to prevent gross misrepresentation of scripture that can lead to heresy, such as Double-Predestination, Pelagianism, Gnosticism, etc. Scripture carries great power as we can see. In the wrong hands of a convincing heretic, he can lead many astray. Especially if said heretic claims to speak for the church. While it’s not as big an issue now, it was born from ye olde heretics who would wield their sales prowess over a witless and generally uneducated masses who didn’t know any better and had one church. The purpose more than anything is to prevent people from speaking for the church with lies. Basically, it’s to prtoect the church from people who wish to do it harm by misrepresenting what it says. It’s not an institution designed to ‘keep people in line’, that’s not the point.
[/quote]

I do believe I understand your point - the Magisterium performs a minimalist function (i.e., providing definitive interpretations only so far as necessary to prevent heresy) - but I don’t think I am making mine clear enough. I am not accusing the episcopate of seeking “to lord it’s authority over the reader.” I am not trying to demonize anyone. My point, however, remains the same - REGARDLESS OF INTENTION, once someone interprets a passage or two ON THE BASIS OF THEIR AUTHORITY rather than HISTORICALLY AND CONTEXTUALLY SENSITIVE EXEGESIS, the perspective of the entire canon (if we are dealing with a set of theologically consistent texts) is automatically constrained. THAT is problematic, because it doesn’t matter if I can provide a reading more consistent with the literary context and historical background of the passage; the decision has already been made as to what that passage means. Conversation fundamentally ends, as one party claims to, in essence, possess at least some degree of special interpretive authority, and I am left asking for evidence.
[/quote]
The interpretations presented aren’t significant because of who interpreted it. They are significant because of what they say. The only thing that counts is whether the interpretation is either true or false. One may disagree with the interpretation, but it’s a whole other thing to prove the interpretation false.
That being the case, there were scriptural authorities even in scripture. So to say it has no say so over anybody else isn’t exactly true either. Clearly, even in yourself, have more authoritative scriptural knowledge than somebody who has not put in the time, effort and study that you have. In the same way, the magisterial authority comes not from the person or institution alone, but that being apart of it means you have put in the time and effort that is formally recognized as being at an authoritative level.
Clearly, you cannot mean that anybody is free to interprate scripture anyway they want to and have just as much value as anybody else.
For instance, I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.
Not everybody’s interpretations of scripture are equal.

[quote]
Take the case of John 6, for example. I say this with the utmost respect for all of you (Brother Chris, Cortes, Pat) - I remain unconvinced by your interpretation of John 6. I will refrain from assuming that your readings of it are essentially the dominant reading taught in the Catholic church, but I would be surprised if it isn’t. That being said, there are other readings of that passage (As Mr. Chen also noted) that I find more compelling. Am I required to accept the argument I consider much less convincing purely on faith?

And please know that I am not questioning your experience of God’s presence in the eucharist. I do not question that AT ALL. I know that this kind of discussion can be difficult specifically because of how precious the eucharist is to men like yourselves. It is not my intention to belittle that sacrament or to deny that God communes with you through that means. That being said, your experience of God’s presence does not prove that your interpretation (i.e., the Catholic church’s) of what is occurring when you take the bread and wine is accurate, nor that such an interpretation is what Jesus refers to in John 6. That, in my opinion, is the critical issue. We can have a genuine spiritual experience without necessarily possessing the appropriate theological categories or vocabulary in which to understand it.[/quote]

The significance of John 6 is really 6:66 where everybody turned their back on Jesus after the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse. Of course you know that John was quite fond of double meanings so I can agree with your point that the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse isn’t the quintessential Eucharistic discourse. It’s an affirming scripture regarding the Eucharist and I believe it to be a foreshadowing of the institution of the Eucharist, but not in itself the authoritative establishment of the Eucharist. However, it was also not only about the Eucharist. It’s also about the total commitment of people who wish to participate in the body of Christ, I.E. the church.
The authoritative scriptures on the Eucharist are in the synoptic particularly, Luke 22:19-20. It’s hard to know what was in the heads of the theologians at the synod of Carthage, but I would guess the gospel of John is last for that reason. The synoptics establish the Eucharist, John affirms it’s importance.
The only time I bring up the ‘Bread of life’ discourse is when people claim to be biblical literalists… Get’s 'em every time

[Brother_Chris]

Shall we begin? No,

because 1) as much as I have tried to entertain the possibility of trying to figure out what Tirib believes, he seemingly shifts what parts of creeds he believes in or I for some reason do not understand the systematic theology of Calvinism that I studied devoutly for half a decade (though I admit, my Calvinism did lack the substantial anti-Catholicism) and 2) I am not aware of your creed in which you place your beliefs, which in turn form your world view. Further, you both (Tirib and KingKai) say that I have bad religion. I being a Christian am devoted to the truth, since only the truth will set me free. I ultimately desire to be free and filled with joy (which I define with prior knowledge as knowing and loving the Father). So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth. Show me where I am wrong, because if I am wrong to believe one tenet of my creeds then I should remove myself from the Church in all its idolatry.

I will print here two creeds that you can use to more easily point and know which tenets Catholic hold:

Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified
  under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

[Brother_Chris]

If there is anything else that seemingly is not in this creed, please bring it up. Thank you.

[Mr_Chen]

pat wrote: The synoptics establish the Eucharist

They don’t establish transubstantiation. My understanding is transubstantion is what makes the RC “eucharist” the eucharist. So, no transubstantiation, no eucharist.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Shall we begin? No,

because 1) as much as I have tried to entertain the possibility of trying to figure out what Tirib believes, he seemingly shifts what parts of creeds he believes in or I for some reason do not understand the systematic theology of Calvinism that I studied devoutly for half a decade (though I admit, my Calvinism did lack the substantial anti-Catholicism) and 2) I am not aware of your creed in which you place your beliefs, which in turn form your world view. Further, you both (Tirib and KingKai) say that I have bad religion. I being a Christian am devoted to the truth, since only the truth will set me free. I ultimately desire to be free and filled with joy (which I define with prior knowledge as knowing and loving the Father). So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth. Show me where I am wrong, because if I am wrong to believe one tenet of my creeds then I should remove myself from the Church in all its idolatry.
[/quote]

[quote]Pat wrote:
The interpretations presented aren’t significant because of who interpreted it. They are significant because of what they say. The only thing that counts is whether the interpretation is either true or false. One may disagree with the interpretation, but it’s a whole other thing to prove the interpretation false.
That being the case, there were scriptural authorities even in scripture. So to say it has no say so over anybody else isn’t exactly true either. Clearly, even in yourself, have more authoritative scriptural knowledge than somebody who has not put in the time, effort and study that you have. In the same way, the magisterial authority comes not from the person or institution alone, but that being apart of it means you have put in the time and effort that is formally recognized as being at an authoritative level.
Clearly, you cannot mean that anybody is free to interprate scripture anyway they want to and have just as much value as anybody else.
For instance, I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.
Not everybody’s interpretations of scripture are equal. [/quote]

I am going to reply to both Brother Chris’ statements and Pat’s right here, because there is a key point of overlap that requires discussion.

First of all, Brother Chris, I did not say that you have a bad religion. At no point have I said that. I don’t know if this is some sort of sarcastic rhetorical flourish on your part or a genuine accusation. Either way, it is ridiculous and unfair. I can say that I remain unconvinced by your church’s claims to special authority without saying it is a “bad religion.” I consider Catholicism one strand among many in the body of Christ. The fact that I disagree with many of your church’s interpretations of various passages doesn’t entail my hatred of your faith, any more than my disagreements with the Anabaptists lead me to believe they are not Christians themselves.

My fundamental issue with your church (over which Tiribulus and I are in sound agreement), the issue that keeps me from seeking communion, is best laid out like this…

1. Your church claims unique authority over all who would rightly claim the name of Jesus Christ.

2. Your church makes this claim based fundamentally on the twin notions of unbroken apostolic succession and continuity of belief with the apostles.

3. These claims to special authority require that the church interact with Scripture to demonstrate that its current views are, in fact, coterminous with those of the apostles.

4. The Scriptures are not written in a single, unalterable, universal language that all human beings can understand, nor was it written in some sort of “Holy Spirit Greek” that any authorized person with the Holy Spirit can decipher intuitively.

5. Rather, Scripture uses historically situated languages that cannot be rightly understood when divorced from their original settings. Paul’s vocabulary derives from the Greco-Roman world of the first century A.D., and though he (and the apostles in general) tweaked the meanings of certain words (grace, honor, salvation, etc.), the words are understandable BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN SOME DEGREE OF CONTINUITY WITH THEIR ORIGINAL MEANINGS IN THE HOST CULTURE.

6. When the Scriptures of the New Testament in the particular are (1) read as literary wholes (2) through eyes and ears sensitized to 1st century Greco-Roman language, culture, and society, many of the Catholic church’s readings do not hold up.

7. THIS IS KEY: AT THAT POINT, WHEN I FIND A READING UNCONVINCING BASED ON LEXICAL, LITERARY, AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, IF IT CONCERNS MAJOR DOGMA, YOU WOULD HAVE ME AFFIRM THE DOGMA ANYWAY IF I DESIRE SALVATION.

Do you see the problem I am facing? It is not a matter of arrogant Protestants trying to deny what is plainly true. It is a matter of intellectual honest Protestants saying, “before I begin to affirm several dogmas which cannot be demonstrated from Scripture nor from history, can you please give me a reason to believe you?”

Now both you and Pat approach this issue fundamentally from the question of authority - who possesses the right to interpret? I agree that not everyone possesses the right to interpret authoritatively for everyone else. I certainly don’t think that I possess such a right.

However, Pat and Chris, you both mischaracterize the nature of authority. BC, I am not asking you to listen to me because I am your “superior;” that’s insulting garbage. You say…

I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth.

Pat likewise declares…

I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.

This is where I feel like you both miss it. BC, I claim no special authority based on my studies; I do not say, “believe me because I have credential X.” Pat, a doctor of physics (just like a doctor in any field) is not someone to be deferred to; he or she is someone who has risen to the point in their academic careers where they should be able to give coherent, defensible accounts of their positions. A doctor of physics should know more than you or I about physics, but that doesn’t give him the right to say, “gravity is actually little invisible aliens holding you down” and to expect us to believe him. His job is still to convince you BASED ON THE SOUNDNESS OF HIS ARGUMENTATION, not on his supposed authority.

Neither Tiribulus nor I am holding up degrees or periods of study or anything else and saying, “listen to us! we claim authority!” Instead, we present arguments and ask you to refute them, to correct us if we are in error. We do not say, “your reading is less convincing a priori because you haven’t studied as much as us.” Instead, we simply ask, “what are the logical grounds for your position on issue X?” That’s what Tiribulus and I are asking the Catholic church. The Catholic church has presented many arguments that we remain unconvinced by for the reasons listed earlier; the Catholic church doesn’t say, “ok, we can accept diversity.” Instead, it says, “we are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and tradition. If you do not accept our dogma, you remain outside of our communion, and outside of this communion, there is NO salvation.”

Do you see the problem yet?

[kamui]

Instead, it says, “we are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and tradition. If you do not accept our dogma, you remain outside of our communion, and outside of this communion, there is NO salvation.”

I won’t say a word about salvation but “auctoritas” originally means “being the author of”.

And in a way, it’s true.
The church did initiate the practice and the theory of textual interpretation, as western civilization understand it.

When i intrepret a philosophical, non-christian and non-scriptural text, i’m aware that i’m doing something the Church did first. Centuries before me.

Which obviously doesn’t mean the Church is right. The Church created the rule of the game of interpretation, but it can obviously be outplayed at its own game.

[KingKai25]

Beyond all of this, there is a further problem. When the study of Scripture cannot adequately support a particular doctrine or practice, church leaders turn to the early Church Fathers for support. The problem, however, is that invariably the church fathers are also read ahistorically - their situatedness in particular times and places is virtually ignored. They are read as univocal witnesses to particular practices and doctrines, despite the fact that they often mean very different things by the same words. As Chris has done multiple times, for example, (and I am not singling him out, because this is a fairly common practice among those who turn to the church fathers for answers), witnesses from the second century A.D. are juxtaposed with witnesses from the sixth century A.D. to prove that a particular practice or doctrine was “very early” or “very common.” The problem, as you can surely see, is that (1) a doctrine or practice may be UNCOMMON in the second century A.D. and COMMON in the sixth, in which case only the earlier witness matters; the two are NOT dual witnesses. This is only one example of the many problems with the way people use the Church fathers. They are NOT a reliable resource when it comes to discerning first century A.D. (i.e., the church of the apostolic period, when the NT texts were composed) practices or doctrines.

So then, if the church does not handle its own “sources” with sufficient rigor and critical awareness, why should I trust it?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

pat wrote: The synoptics establish the Eucharist

They don’t establish transubstantiation. My understanding is transubstantion is what makes the RC “eucharist” the eucharist. So, no transubstantiation, no eucharist.[/quote]

No transubstantiation is the developed knowledge of the Eucharist. Basically, it is a word that was developed in order to make clear what is true and what is heretical. Just like the first Christians believed in the Trinity, they just didn’t have our developed knowledge of it. After man years of defending the Trinity, they came up with word Trinity and further developed into what we know to day, such as three persons in one God.

Jesus makes the Eucharist.

The Orthodox believe in the true presence of the Eucharist (both Orthodox and the universal Church recognize each other’s communions as valid, in cases of emergencies we are actually allowed to consume the Eucharist from each other’s priests), however, they don’t call it transubstantiation.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Shall we begin? No,

because 1) as much as I have tried to entertain the possibility of trying to figure out what Tirib believes, he seemingly shifts what parts of creeds he believes in or I for some reason do not understand the systematic theology of Calvinism that I studied devoutly for half a decade (though I admit, my Calvinism did lack the substantial anti-Catholicism) and 2) I am not aware of your creed in which you place your beliefs, which in turn form your world view. Further, you both (Tirib and KingKai) say that I have bad religion. I being a Christian am devoted to the truth, since only the truth will set me free. I ultimately desire to be free and filled with joy (which I define with prior knowledge as knowing and loving the Father). So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth. Show me where I am wrong, because if I am wrong to believe one tenet of my creeds then I should remove myself from the Church in all its idolatry.
[/quote]

[quote]Pat wrote:
The interpretations presented aren’t significant because of who interpreted it. They are significant because of what they say. The only thing that counts is whether the interpretation is either true or false. One may disagree with the interpretation, but it’s a whole other thing to prove the interpretation false.
That being the case, there were scriptural authorities even in scripture. So to say it has no say so over anybody else isn’t exactly true either. Clearly, even in yourself, have more authoritative scriptural knowledge than somebody who has not put in the time, effort and study that you have. In the same way, the magisterial authority comes not from the person or institution alone, but that being apart of it means you have put in the time and effort that is formally recognized as being at an authoritative level.
Clearly, you cannot mean that anybody is free to interprate scripture anyway they want to and have just as much value as anybody else.
For instance, I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.
Not everybody’s interpretations of scripture are equal. [/quote]

I am going to reply to both Brother Chris’ statements and Pat’s right here, because there is a key point of overlap that requires discussion.

First of all, Brother Chris, I did not say that you have a bad religion. At no point have I said that. I don’t know if this is some sort of sarcastic rhetorical flourish on your part or a genuine accusation. Either way, it is ridiculous and unfair. I can say that I remain unconvinced by your church’s claims to special authority without saying it is a “bad religion.” I consider Catholicism one strand among many in the body of Christ. The fact that I disagree with many of your church’s interpretations of various passages doesn’t entail my hatred of your faith, any more than my disagreements with the Anabaptists lead me to believe they are not Christians themselves.

My fundamental issue with your church (over which Tiribulus and I are in sound agreement), the issue that keeps me from seeking communion, is best laid out like this…

1. Your church claims unique authority over all who would rightly claim the name of Jesus Christ.

2. Your church makes this claim based fundamentally on the twin notions of unbroken apostolic succession and continuity of belief with the apostles.

3. These claims to special authority require that the church interact with Scripture to demonstrate that its current views are, in fact, coterminous with those of the apostles.

4. The Scriptures are not written in a single, unalterable, universal language that all human beings can understand, nor was it written in some sort of “Holy Spirit Greek” that any authorized person with the Holy Spirit can decipher intuitively.

5. Rather, Scripture uses historically situated languages that cannot be rightly understood when divorced from their original settings. Paul’s vocabulary derives from the Greco-Roman world of the first century A.D., and though he (and the apostles in general) tweaked the meanings of certain words (grace, honor, salvation, etc.), the words are understandable BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN SOME DEGREE OF CONTINUITY WITH THEIR ORIGINAL MEANINGS IN THE HOST CULTURE.

6. When the Scriptures of the New Testament in the particular are (1) read as literary wholes (2) through eyes and ears sensitized to 1st century Greco-Roman language, culture, and society, many of the Catholic church’s readings do not hold up.

7. THIS IS KEY: AT THAT POINT, WHEN I FIND A READING UNCONVINCING BASED ON LEXICAL, LITERARY, AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, IF IT CONCERNS MAJOR DOGMA, YOU WOULD HAVE ME AFFIRM THE DOGMA ANYWAY IF I DESIRE SALVATION.

Do you see the problem I am facing? It is not a matter of arrogant Protestants trying to deny what is plainly true. It is a matter of intellectual honest Protestants saying, “before I begin to affirm several dogmas which cannot be demonstrated from Scripture nor from history, can you please give me a reason to believe you?”

Now both you and Pat approach this issue fundamentally from the question of authority - who possesses the right to interpret? I agree that not everyone possesses the right to interpret authoritatively for everyone else. I certainly don’t think that I possess such a right.

However, Pat and Chris, you both mischaracterize the nature of authority. BC, I am not asking you to listen to me because I am your “superior;” that’s insulting garbage. You say…

I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth.

Pat likewise declares…

I am interested in science and I love it. But I am not as authoritative on the matter as say a doctor of physics. In the same way, the theologians of the magisterium have earned the authority. It was attained, not bestowed.

This is where I feel like you both miss it. BC, I claim no special authority based on my studies; I do not say, “believe me because I have credential X.” Pat, a doctor of physics (just like a doctor in any field) is not someone to be deferred to; he or she is someone who has risen to the point in their academic careers where they should be able to give coherent, defensible accounts of their positions. A doctor of physics should know more than you or I about physics, but that doesn’t give him the right to say, “gravity is actually little invisible aliens holding you down” and to expect us to believe him. His job is still to convince you BASED ON THE SOUNDNESS OF HIS ARGUMENTATION, not on his supposed authority.

Neither Tiribulus nor I am holding up degrees or periods of study or anything else and saying, “listen to us! we claim authority!” Instead, we present arguments and ask you to refute them, to correct us if we are in error. We do not say, “your reading is less convincing a priori because you haven’t studied as much as us.” Instead, we simply ask, “what are the logical grounds for your position on issue X?” That’s what Tiribulus and I are asking the Catholic church. The Catholic church has presented many arguments that we remain unconvinced by for the reasons listed earlier; the Catholic church doesn’t say, “ok, we can accept diversity.” Instead, it says, “we are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and tradition. If you do not accept our dogma, you remain outside of our communion, and outside of this communion, there is NO salvation.”

Do you see the problem yet?[/quote]

Yes, you didn’t answer my question. What’s wrong with the doctrines I believe? You said you don’t believe them, therefore you think they are wrong. If they are wrong, they go directly against God. Thus, they are bad religion.

Further, If I am wrong I want to be shown why I am wrong. I asked you nicely and humbly to show me where I am wrong. Instead you went on a diatribe about why you think my Church is wrong, but I still don’t know about what you think is wrong (except for the list of things that you don’t believe Catholics convincingly proved to you beyond reasonable doubt to you). However, you never said why you disagree with those doctrines.

How about this, I will ask you a question. You answer it based on what you believe is the truth. I suppose we should start with some fundamentals (there is no reason to argue about the more intricate doctrines of my faith (faith being a relationship with Jesus and his Church, not just a list of things I believe)).

Do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Or, are there extra biblical documents/persons/offices/&c. in which are a rule for the faith?

[KingKai25]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Instead, it says, “we are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and tradition. If you do not accept our dogma, you remain outside of our communion, and outside of this communion, there is NO salvation.”

I won’t say a word about salvation but “auctoritas” originally means “being the author of”.

And in a way, it’s true.
The church did initiate the practice and the theory of textual interpretation, as western civilization understand it.

When i intrepret a philosophical, non-christian and non-scriptural text, i’m aware that i’m doing something the Church did first. Centuries before me.

Which obviously doesn’t mean the Church is right. The Church created the rule of the game of interpretation, but it can obviously be outplayed at its own game. [/quote]

That’s not entirely true, Kamui. The church’s sensibilities and practices of textual interpretation derived originally from the philosophical and rhetorical schools of Alexandria and Antioch, not to mention the Jewish scribal schools. The church certainly developed, preserved, and disseminated these theories and practices to the west, but their origin predates Christianity. Dr. Michael W. Graves, one of my mentors, wrote an excellent essay on this particular issue.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< If they are wrong, they go directly against God. Thus, they are bad religion. >>[/quote]I KNEW you were gonna say this Christopher. I have a post started in another tab where I was going to say as much. I agree with you and disagree with KK. It is bad religion. It is not simply the largest though flawed denomination of Christianity. I agree with MacArthur here. It’s another religion. With another Gospel. I will however say right now that in spite of that I believe God saves people there. He saves them in spite of and not because of her. To borrow a Wrightism (yes yer highness you read that Wright, no pun intended) I cannot find a better explanation for the growth I see in you than a doctrine of regeneration you don’t even believe in. I’ll say it again. Much to the unfortunate Chagrin of my friend Cortes. The God I know IS THAT merciful. So. KK sees a long list of bad central doctrines that somehow don’t add up to bad religion and I see bad religion that manages to somehow fail at damning all of it’s adherents. I’m pretty sure brother Chen sees a bad religion that does damn all of its’ adherents. MacArthur pretty much does too. They may be right.

I confess right here and now to a large subjective component that allows me the comfort of believing you are my brother Chris.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Or, are there extra biblical documents/persons/offices/&c. in which are a rule for the faith?[/quote]I’d be interested in hearing what he says to this as well. For myself? I do not believe that anything outside of scripture can be “theopneustos”. I am however torn at times on the absolute nature of a closed canon. In other words, could there EVER be additional God breathed scripture found? I really REALLY doubt it, but have a hard time saying absolutely not.

How bout we stay on John 6? I say the rest of the conversation in the immediate context is explained much better without finding a literal command by the Lord to eat His flesh and drink His blood. I am dead tired and must get sleep though.
I really believe that “know[ing] Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death”(Philippians 3:10) IS eating His flesh and drinking His blood which is signified in holy communion. Further, I really do believe that Jesus allowed those who left, to persist in their literal misunderstanding of what they took to be cannibalism, BUT, that isn’t the solitary or maybe even the primary reason they left. They left after he reiterated that “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” He Himself told them that the words He just said them were “spirit and life.” When the apostles were asked by the Lord if they would leave as well, Peter, having the perfect opportunity, does not answer that they have nowhere to go to get His flesh and blood so they can have life. He replies with “You have the WORDS of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” That’s it for now folks. I am wiped out.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

How bout we stay on John 6? I say the rest of the conversation in the immediate context is explained much better without finding a literal command by the Lord to eat His flesh and drink His blood. I am dead tired and must get sleep though.
I really believe that “know[ing] Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death”(Philippians 3:10) IS eating His flesh and drinking His blood which is signified in holy communion. Further, I really do believe that Jesus allowed those who left, to persist in their literal misunderstanding of what they took to be cannibalism, BUT, that isn’t the solitary or maybe even the primary reason they left. They left after he reiterated that “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” He Himself told them that the words He just said them were “spirit and life.” When the apostles were asked by the Lord if they would leave as well, Peter, having the perfect opportunity, does not answer that they have nowhere to go to get His flesh and blood so they can have life. He replies with “You have the WORDS of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” That’s it for now folks. I am wiped out.
[/quote]

This is an excellent idea, if for no other reason than that it allows us to demonstrate how exegetical arguments function among Protestants. I agree with Tiribulus’ reading in one respect, but in two others I find it unconvincing. HERE IS WHY…

First of all, I would argue (and Tirib would agree, as would most other biblical interpreters) that the best interpretation of a given passage does justice to its larger literary context. The best interpretation takes into account how a particular passage is functioning in the larger argument of the document of which it is a part. Unless absolutely necessary (perhaps being indicated by the author herself), I do not assume that a story or section appears within a work for no better reason than that the author thought it was interesting. A given passage assumes a certain position in a text because it is meant to serve a certain purpose. Moreover, the best interpretation will also be historically plausible - at the particular point in time in which this text was written, such an interpretation was likely intended by the author. I would probably be misinterpreting Paul’s promise in 1 Thess. 4:17 that believers will be “caught up in the air” with the resurrected saints as an allusion to airplane travel.

Moving to exegesis of John’s gospel, then, I will reiterate several points I made before…

1. John likes to highlight Jesus’ nature as a paradoxical, controversial, and frequently misunderstood figure.
2. One of the main ways in which John portrays this aspect of Jesus’ character is by including stories in his gospel in which (a) Jesus says something controversial, usually employing a PHYSICAL METAPHOR with a SPIRITUAL MEANING (b) which Jesus’ audience misunderstands by interpreting the metaphor as a literal statement (usually saying something that CLEARLY indicates that they are taking the metaphor literally), (c) and in these stories, Jesus shoves the metaphor in their faces, refusing to explain the spiritual meaning, which is left to John’s readership to decipher. Excellent examples include Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus about being “born again” in John 3 (note Nicodemus’ response - “how can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 3:4); Jesus’ discussion about “living water” with the woman at the well in John 4; and Jesus’ conversation with his disciples about the “sleeping/death” of Lazarus in John 11:11-15 (note that they once again misunderstand his meaning (“lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be alright”), and here, since they are his trusted disciples, Jesus explains his true meaning).
3. One of John’s primary rhetorical goals, both in his letters and in his gospel, is to provoke his readers to inquire, “who are truly Jesus’ disciples?” The point of this question is not simply to gain information; rather, it functions in a exhortative fashion to encourage John’s readers to press in and try to understand Jesus, to BE true disciples.

Returning to John 6, Tirib seems to see the primary problem the audience faced as Jesus’ teaching on election - just as many Christians since the Reformation have struggled with the ramifications of God’s sovereign decisions, so the Jews in Jesus’ audience here, confronted by such teaching, turned away. I agree with Tirib that election in a broad sense is in focus in this passage; I argue that one of John’s primary rhetorical goals in this passage is to cause his readership to ask, “who are Jesus’ true disciples?”

Where I disagree with Tirib’s reading is on his highlighting of election as the primary teaching that puts some of the disciples off. On the historical level, this simply doesn’t work, because the reality is that THE MAJORITY of Jews were comfortable with the notion of personal election in the first century. That’s right, folks - despite our misreading of Romans 9 it was NOT the reality of election that bothered most Jews. The majority of Jews possessed a VERY deterministic view of the cosmos; the Pharisees and Sadducees stood out because the Sadducees didn’t believe in personal election at all, and Pharisees believed simultaneously in free will AND in election (without redefining freedom the way Calvinists do). So, on the historical level, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Jesus’ audience would have been turned off by the discussion of election.

What did bother them? Literarily, we have to note the progression. The text is very specific about what bothered Jesus’ audience. First of all, the Jews complain because he called himself the bread from heaven (6:41-42). It is when they take offense at him that Jesus first responds with a statement on election - “no one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me” (6:44). Jesus then goes on to expound upon his status as the bread from heaven (6:48-51), causing the people to once again misunderstand him by taking his spiritual statements literally (6:52). As usual in John’s gospel, since Jesus is talking to the crowds, he does NOT explain what he means; he continues on the same subject and leaves them to think that he is talking literally (6:53-58).

Now this the crux of the matter - Jesus said all these things about him being bread and wine while in a synagogue in Capernaum, and many of his disciples say to him, “THIS TEACHING is difficult; who can accept it?” (6:60). What teaching are they referring to? The teaching on election? Hardly - Jesus’ statement on election occurred much earlier in the story, and the statements that Jesus made that bothered the Jews were NOT his statements on election, but rather his statements on being eaten (6:41-42, 52). In context, the most likely issue that is bothering the disciples is Jesus’ discussion of cannibalism, NOT his teaching on election. Indeed, their statement in 6:60 implies that they ALREADY do not believe in him, a fact which Jesus affirms (6:64) BEFORE bringing up election again (6:65). His comment about election likely refers back to John’s parenthetical insertion in 6:64 (“For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones who did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.”); 6:65 is thus best translated, "for this reason (because he knew their hearts) Jesus said, “I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Thus the “because of this” in John 6:66 likely refers back to Jesus’ entire teaching on his’ status as the bread of heaven rather than specifically to his statement on election. They are already in a state of unbelief; Jesus’ refusal to explain himself in 6:61-65 simply strengthens them in their unbelief, leading to their departure.

So what is the point of this section in John’s gospel? I argue that it is to remind us to push further in, to recognize that not everyone who claims to be a disciple (including ourselves) truly IS a disciple. Jesus’ ONCE AGAIN makes difficult statements; the proper response is not to misinterpret him or to run away, but to declare, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Cortes gets that; thus his question to me on pg 37 - “what if YOU are those disciples (the one’s who left)” - was dead on, provoking me to respond…

Haha now THAT is the right question! THAT is the question John’s gospel means for us to ask! Now we are getting back to Scripture. In all honesty, I don’t even care that you completely ignored my actual exegetical argument; I love the fact that now we are asking the exact sort of questions Scripture is intended to provoke. Am I a true disciple or a false one? Am I willing to follow Jesus regardless of the difficulty, or will I turn away when he says or does something in my life that I consider “offensive?”

[KingKai25]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, you didn’t answer my question. What’s wrong with the doctrines I believe? You said you don’t believe them, therefore you think they are wrong. If they are wrong, they go directly against God. Thus, they are bad religion.

Further, If I am wrong I want to be shown why I am wrong. I asked you nicely and humbly to show me where I am wrong. Instead you went on a diatribe about why you think my Church is wrong, but I still don’t know about what you think is wrong (except for the list of things that you don’t believe Catholics convincingly proved to you beyond reasonable doubt to you). However, you never said why you disagree with those doctrines.

How about this, I will ask you a question. You answer it based on what you believe is the truth. I suppose we should start with some fundamentals (there is no reason to argue about the more intricate doctrines of my faith (faith being a relationship with Jesus and his Church, not just a list of things I believe)).

Do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Or, are there extra biblical documents/persons/offices/&c. in which are a rule for the faith?[/quote]

There was nothing “humble” in your response, Chris; see your tongue-in-cheek statement…

[quote] So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth.
[/quote]

I feel like you simply do not believe my assertion that it is NOT my goal to tear down Catholicism. You belittle my post as a “diatribe” (and I do apologize for the length of my posts - I’ll work on that), but the fact is that it is on the most FUNDAMENTAL levels where I remain unconvinced. If you really want to nitpick over particular doctrines, that’s fine, but my goal wasn’t to tear down church dogmas one at a time, but to point out that it is YOUR church that refuses communion to those of us who, though claiming the name of Jesus Christ and seeking to live faithfully, remain unconvinced by the church’s defense of many of her dogmas.

Please define for me “rule of faith.” Then I’ll tell you honestly (and to the point) what I think. Yes, I know how it was used early in church history, but I want to make sure we are on the exact same page, so please define the term. Are you referring to it as “source of knowledge relating to doctrines and practices?”

[Tiribulus]

Let me hasten to clarify, publicly, in front of all these fine people, that I have no illusions regarding my pale academic qualifications in light of your own. I will also go on record as saying that that IS NOT a disdainful jab as I suspect you MAY suspect. Truly. Absolutely not.

NASB[quote]65-And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66-As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.[/quote] This is the occurrence of His mentioning election that I was referring to. Not the one earlier in the dialog. The pronoun rendered as “this”,(NASB) as you know much better than I do, along with the preceding preposition, encompass the entire conversation to that point in my opinion. To paraphrase: “after hearing allll this (from then onward is also a reasonable rendering), many turned back and stopped following Him”.

What do you make of verse 63 where he contrasts “pneuma” giving “zoe” (zao? I always mix up the noun and verb) with “he sarx” which profits nothing. And that His “rhema” ARE “pneuma” and “zoe”. I take that as something of a mitigation to the sting of what they took as his endorsement of cannibalism. No? In other words, it is a bit of an explanation after all though certainly not an extended defense of his cryptic and offensive declaration. We’ve also skipped over whether the whole idea of flesh descending from heaven, to be eaten or not, may play some part here. Maybe not. This is a question from me. Do you see any variance in the apostle’s use of sarx in verse 56 with his later use in verse 63? That is NOT a trick question LOL!! God help us LOL!! As cozy as we’ve gotten on one hand the guard is still up LOL!!!

We do agree, most importantly that whatever the perfect exegesis is, it does not include the notion of literally and physically consuming the biological flesh and blood of the resurrected and already glorified son of God. I do BTW, wholeheartedly concur with your assessment of John style and overall purpose as well as Jesus clear use of the “shock treatment” method. One other quick thing. I also do not see it as my mission to destroy the Catholic(big C Christopher) church. I do however unwaveringly believe that a proclamation of the biblical gospel will by definition expose the gospel according to the Vatican(I’ll even give ya a big V) as one of the false ones we’ve been warned about.

[Headhunter]

Been reading through this thread. Wow! I used to think that very few people actually genuinely followed this stuff and that most just did for the sake of appearances. Thought only the few demented ones did – now it seems like that a whole lot of people believe this.

This is shocking to me, like finding out that 60% of people believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy…and they really mean it.

We are fucked. Wow!!!

[Tiribulus]

moved to your “Life After Death Scientifically Proven” thread

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I KNEW you were gonna say this Christopher. I have a post started in another tab where I was going to say as much. I agree with you and disagree with KK. It is bad religion. It is not simply the largest though flawed denomination of Christianity. I agree with MacArthur here. It’s another religion. With another Gospel. I will however say right now that in spite of that I believe God saves people there. He saves them in spite of and not because of her. To borrow a Wrightism (yes yer highness you read that Wright, no pun intended) I cannot find a better explanation for the growth I see in you than a doctrine of regeneration you don’t even believe in. I’ll say it again. Much to the unfortunate Chagrin of my friend Cortes. The God I know IS THAT merciful. So. KK sees a long list of bad central doctrines that somehow don’t add up to bad religion and I see bad religion that manages to somehow fail at damning all of it’s adherents. I’m pretty sure brother Chen sees a bad religion that does damn all of its’ adherents. MacArthur pretty much does too. They may be right.

I confess right here and now to a large subjective component that allows me the comfort of believing you are my brother Chris.[/quote]

Seemingly rash and limp wrist-ed answer (the Church which with my faith is through…is bad, but my faith is good…does not make sense). It is not bad religion. Nor have you proven that it is a bad religion. You do not read my words correctly. If it is bad religion, it is all bad religion (read: all the doctrine is to be assumed as false, as if one doctrine is wrong the Church is wrong, therefore none of its teachings have any authority).

The annunciation, visitation to Elizabeth, nativity, consecration of the temple, finding at the temple, praying in the garden, purging at the pillar, crowning of thorns, carrying the cross, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, descension of the Holy Ghost, assumption, coronation, baptism of the Lord, wedding of Cana, proclamation of the kingdom, transfiguration, and the institute of the Eucharist. Trinity, Fatherhood, Priesthood, Baptism, Communion of Saints, &c. This also means the Canon of Scripture goes out the window and we lose the salvation narrative: From creation, the Covenant with Adam the fall, Cain and Abel, the Flood, Covenant with Noah, Covenant with Abraham, Jacob, Covenant with Moses, Desert wondering, Joshua, Judges, Covenant King David, King Solomon, temple, split kingdom, exile, Maccabean revolt, Jesus and his Church in the new Covenant.

I’d be interested in hearing what he says to this as well. For myself? I do not believe that anything outside of scripture can be “theopneustos”. I am however torn at times on the absolute nature of a closed canon. In other words, could there EVER be additional God breathed scripture found? I really REALLY doubt it, but have a hard time saying absolutely not.

One issue at a time. So, you believe the Bible is the sole rule of faith. So, where is that in the Bible that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, you didn’t answer my question. What’s wrong with the doctrines I believe? You said you don’t believe them, therefore you think they are wrong. If they are wrong, they go directly against God. Thus, they are bad religion.

Further, If I am wrong I want to be shown why I am wrong. I asked you nicely and humbly to show me where I am wrong. Instead you went on a diatribe about why you think my Church is wrong, but I still don’t know about what you think is wrong (except for the list of things that you don’t believe Catholics convincingly proved to you beyond reasonable doubt to you). However, you never said why you disagree with those doctrines.

How about this, I will ask you a question. You answer it based on what you believe is the truth. I suppose we should start with some fundamentals (there is no reason to argue about the more intricate doctrines of my faith (faith being a relationship with Jesus and his Church, not just a list of things I believe)).

Do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Or, are there extra biblical documents/persons/offices/&c. in which are a rule for the faith?[/quote]

There was nothing “humble” in your response, Chris; see your tongue-in-cheek statement…

[quote] So, since I have bad religion, please show me the truth. I also seem to be your inferior in matters of scripture and history, this likely being caused de facto by my Catholic baptism, seemingly. Thus, because you are my superior in these matters, please, I wish you to show me the truth.
[/quote][/quote]

That’s not really tongue-in-cheek. I am being honest. You have far superior skills when it comes to dealing with scripture. You believe you have truth do you not? You know a brother that is in error, why do you not show him fraternal correction? Do the scriptures not say, “go and tell him his fault…if he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”

I feel like you simply do not believe my assertion that it is NOT my goal to tear down Catholicism.

I assume your goal is to fulfill the great commission, "Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

You belittle my post as a “diatribe” (and I do apologize for the length of my posts - I’ll work on that), but the fact is that it is on the most FUNDAMENTAL levels where I remain unconvinced. If you really want to nitpick over particular doctrines, that’s fine, but my goal wasn’t to tear down church dogmas one at a time, but to point out that it is YOUR church that refuses communion to those of us who, though claiming the name of Jesus Christ and seeking to live faithfully, remain unconvinced by the church’s defense of many of her dogmas.

Yes, I suppose that one could say we refuse communion. We also refuse that Catholics participate in other communities’ communion. We also refuse communion to Catholics for various reasons. It is a medicinal in nature. However, that is looking at it from the negative aspect of the issue (what we take away). The reason falls on the positive (what we want to give others) It’s a matter of respect (bc, you are not in communion with the Church and do not believe and hold to the doctrines put forth by Jesus and the Church (believing and holding are distinct from each other)). Further, if one believes in heresy and participates in communion, one is drinking and eating condemnation on ones self. Also, not being allowed communion places a yearning in the bones of Catholics to repent to God and turn away from sin.

Please define for me “rule of faith.” Then I’ll tell you honestly (and to the point) what I think. Yes, I know how it was used early in church history, but I want to make sure we are on the exact same page, so please define the term. Are you referring to it as “source of knowledge relating to doctrines and practices?”

The word rule means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yes, I suppose that one could say we refuse communion. We also refuse that Catholics participate in other communities’ communion. We also refuse communion to Catholics for various reasons. It is a medicinal in nature. However, that is looking at it from the negative aspect of the issue (what we take away). The reason falls on the positive (what we want to give others) It’s a matter of respect (bc, you are not in communion with the Church and do not believe and hold to the doctrines put forth by Jesus and the Church (believing and holding are distinct from each other)). Further, if one believes in heresy and participates in communion, one is drinking and eating condemnation on ones self. Also, not being allowed communion places a yearning in the bones of Catholics to repent to God and turn away from sin. [/quote]

I do understand the reasons. I know that, within the confines of Catholic theology, there are thoughtful and legitimate reasons for why communion is refused. I also realize that communion fulfills a different function for Catholics than it does in Protestant denominations. My point remains that same, however - if YOU TOO are trying to fulfill the great commission, and you consider communion an essential aspect of the salvific process, why do you refuse it to those who remain unconvinced by your arguments? If I am not simply wicked and belligerent, but am truly seeking the Lord and offer (HYPOTHETICALLY) valid critiques of the arguments you present to legitimize certain doctrines, why withhold salvation (i.e., communion with what you consider to be the one and only true representative of Christ’s church) from me?

The word rule means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself.

BC, I really appreciate your attempt to define it for me, but I am not sure how everything in your response connected. You seem to be using “faith” here in two different senses - on the one hand, faith refers to “propositional content” or “beliefs to which one assents.” On the other hand, you are also using “faith” to denote “belief/trust/assent.” Both uses of pisteos derive from Scripture, and the concept of the “rule of faith” was relatively broad even in patristic literature (hence my desire for you to define it). For now, I will offer a summary definition and do my best to answer based on that.

I’ll define the rule of faith according to one of its earliest Christian usages as that body of doctrines and practices against which all other beliefs and acts must be measured. Now based on that definition, it is difficult to say that Scripture itself IS the rule of faith (i.e., a body of doctrines and practices). The canon is not itself a list of doctrines and practices. The closest thing would be a creed, but even there, you might prefer to say that the rule of faith is reflected or exemplified in a creed rather than exhausted by it.

Beyond that, you are asking if I consider the canon to serve as a rule of faith in the sense of supplying sufficient knowledge of appropriate doctrines and practices to govern and determine the legitimacy of doctrinal developments. Is that correct?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yes, I suppose that one could say we refuse communion. We also refuse that Catholics participate in other communities’ communion. We also refuse communion to Catholics for various reasons. It is a medicinal in nature. However, that is looking at it from the negative aspect of the issue (what we take away). The reason falls on the positive (what we want to give others) It’s a matter of respect (bc, you are not in communion with the Church and do not believe and hold to the doctrines put forth by Jesus and the Church (believing and holding are distinct from each other)). Further, if one believes in heresy and participates in communion, one is drinking and eating condemnation on ones self. Also, not being allowed communion places a yearning in the bones of Catholics to repent to God and turn away from sin. [/quote]

I do understand the reasons. I know that, within the confines of Catholic theology, there are thoughtful and legitimate reasons for why communion is refused. I also realize that communion fulfills a different function for Catholics than it does in Protestant denominations. My point remains that same, however - if YOU TOO are trying to fulfill the great commission, and you consider communion an essential aspect of the salvific process, why do you refuse it to those who remain unconvinced by your arguments? If I am not simply wicked and belligerent, but am truly seeking the Lord and offer (HYPOTHETICALLY) valid critiques of the arguments you present to legitimize certain doctrines, why withhold salvation (i.e., communion with what you consider to be the one and only true representative of Christ’s church) from me?[/quote]

Because at certain points, it goes against your salvation. Not only because It brings condemnation upon you, but because living in heresy goes against your salvation. There is nothing wrong with not understanding (have questions), that is not a sin, that is not heresy. However, if you are living in heresy, “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith” (Code of Canon Law c.751), you are thus risking the salvation of your soul. The refusing of communion has a medicinal end or purpose in which to bring the faithful out of heresy.

This is not necessarily correct, but I always thought it was funny. It’s the supernatural cough syrup.