Legalisms and the Eucharist?

[Michaeljc4]

Thanks, Banjo. I have a great big Catholic Study Bible, but it’s the NAB version (which I hate, although the supporting materials are really good). I’ll check these out. I feel smarter by just listening to Scott Hahn.

 

[rpp]

Thanks, Banjo. I have a great big Catholic Study Bible, but it’s the NAB version (which I hate, although the supporting materials are really good). I’ll check these out. I feel smarter by just listening to Scott Hahn.

Hard to go wrong with Dr. Hahn! Check out his “Lamb’s Supper” CD.

 

[Michaeljc4]

I listened to his cd about converting to Catholicism. It was really powerful. He’s wicked smaht (as we say here in Massachusetts).

 

[Hellisreal]

This is one of the great debates that is ongoing in the church. The institution is far from perfect over the years. For various reasons different sects have broken off at different times due to failures of the organization at the time. There have been many attempts by all levels of the church to try to reconcile this. I was told my my priest a couple of years ago he was at an Eastern Orthodox service and he was refused under their laws and he has tried his best to make others welcome when they cannot receive communion (e.g. recieve blessing) being of a different sect (this was during a huge funeral of a local youth and almost everyone in town wanted to come). The RCC is not alone in rules like this, old grudges die hard for no more reason that it is “tradition”.

Other attempts have been with political and social stances (e.g. withholding communion over “pro-abortion” (really misleading term) and same-gender rights and unions from both politicians and regular laypeople.

Personally, **as a frequent EM, **I give it to everyone and would even if there was an statement from the bishop (but mine is not the type to do that).

No such title. EMHC is the correct abbrieviation.

There are no Eucharistic Ministers and no one should be calling themselves that.

If you dont know what EMHC stands for you better find out fast.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Michaeljc4:

The premise of your question may be mistaken. The novel about Paul seems to be based on a mistaken interpretation of the Scriptures. In his recent book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” around pages 106-110, the Pope discusses this “conventional” theory, about Jesus (and Paul). Here is a brief excerpt from the discussion, but one really should read the whole book; it is masterful. The circumstances surrounding this selection are that the Pope is discussing a book by a believing Rabbi who thoughtfully examines the Gospels and offers insight into the true dispute between Jesus and the Jews of his day:

Let us follow Rabbi Neusner’s dialogue with Jesus, beginning with the Sabbath. For Israel, observing the Sabbath with scrupulous care is the central expression of life in Covenant with God. Even the superficial reader of the Gospels realizes that the dispute over what does and does not belong to the Sabbath is at the heart of Jesus’ differences with the people of Israel of his time. The conventional interpretation is that Jesus broke open a narrow-minded, legalistic practice and replaced it with a more generous, more liberal view, and thereby opened the door for acting rationally in accord with the given situation. Jesus’ statement that “the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath’ (Mk 2:27) is cited as evidence, the idea being that it represents an anthropocentric view of reality, from which a “liberal” interpretation of the commandments supposedly follows naturally. It was, in fact, the Sabbath dispute that became the basis for the image of the liberal Jesus. His critique of the Judaism of his time, so it is said, was freedom-loving and rational man’s critique of an ossified legalism – hypocrital to the core and guilty of dragging religion down to the level of a slavish system of utterly unreasonable obligations that hold man back from developing his work and his freedom. It goes without saying that this interpretation did not favor a particularly friendly image of Judaism. Of course, the modern critique – beginning with the Reformation – saw in Catholicism the return of this supposedly “Jewish” element. . .

Neusner is surprisingly quick to brush this sort of interpretation aside – as well he might, because he lays bare the real bone of contention so convincingly. Commenting on the dispute over the disciples’ right to pluck the ears of wheat, he simply writes: “What troubles me, therefore, is not that the disciples do not obey one of the rules of the Sabbath. That is trivial and beside the point” (p. 83). . . Neusner is nonetheless right to identify Jesus’ answer in the dispute over the ears of wheat as the place where the heart of the conflict is laid bare.

. . . Neusner comments: “He [Jesus] and his disciples may do on the Sabbath what they do because they stand in the place of the priests in the Temple; the holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circle made up of the master and his disciples” (pp. 83f,). . .

Neusner can now say even more clearly than before: “No wonder, then, that the son of man is lord of the Sabbath! The reason is not that he interprets the Sabbath restrictions in a liberal manner. . . Jesus was not just another reforming rabbi, out to make life ‘easier’ for people. . . No the issue is not that the burden is light . . . Jesus’ claim to authority is at issue” (p. 85). “Christ now stands on the mountain, he now takes the place of the Torah” (p. 87). The conversation between the practicing Jew and Jesus comes to the decisive point here. His noble reserve leads him to put the question to Jesus’ disciple, rather than to Jesus himself: “Is it really so that your master, the son of man, is the lord of the Sabbath? . . . I ask again – is your master God?” (p. 88).

The issue that is really at the heart of the debate is thus finally laid bare. Jesus understands himself as the Torah – as the word of God in person. The tremendous prologue of John’s Gospel – “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1) – says nothing different from what the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount and the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels says. The Jesus of the Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of the Synoptics is one and the same: the true “historical” Jesus.

All of this suggests that an analysis which sees the dispute as between “law” and “no law” is too narrow and to a certain extent a projection rather than an understanding of the Gospel. The same God who generated the complexity of the Old Law is the God of the New Law. It is the “law of freedom,” which demands that one’s wishes be conformed to the will of the Law Giver.

Needless to say, this is not inconsistent with detailed and careful attention to the nuances of right behavior; rather it requires one to obey the law willingly and without external enforcement.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[SemperTotusTuus]

Saint Padre Pio often refused to give Holy Communion to some people when he “saw” they were not in a state of grace! He used this as a very effective means to wake them up so that they would confess their sins. Sacrilege was one of the sins this stigmatized priest hated the most!

It is interesting to note that when Jesus is seemingly criticizing “legalism” he is in fact asking something much more “difficult” than mere legalims! Something we cannot achieve by ourselves…
See for example the question about the washing of the hands. It is not unwashed hands, but what comes from the heart that defiles a person:

For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15, 19-20)

Well, what is the most “easy” thing: wash your heand so that your conscience is clean or “wash your heart”?
Can we approach the banquet that Our King has prepared for us being “defiled” the way Jesus sees it? Shouldn’t we make our heart and soul beautiful for the Bridegroom? What about the parable in which the king has prepared a banquet for the wedding feast of his son?

'My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment? (Matthew 22,12)

 

[Michaeljc4]

John, thank you so much for taking the time to type all of that out. I have every intention of reading the Pope’s book; I’m just going to wait for the paperback (I don’t have $25 to shell out!)

So Jesus becomes the Torah, the New Covenant, and the means through which the Law of God can be obeyed without external enforcement…right? The old Levitical practices can be put aside because we now have Jesus’ example and proscriptions to follow. The law is the same; the practices are different…right? In other words, we don’t have to keep kosher, or purify ourselves if we become spiritually soiled in the way that the Jews used to before the coming of the Messiah. Am I getting this right?

 

[John_Hiner]

John, thank you so much for taking the time to type all of that out. I have every intention of reading the Pope’s book; I’m just going to wait for the paperback (I don’t have $25 to shell out!)

So Jesus becomes the Torah, the New Covenant, and the means through which the Law of God can be obeyed without external enforcement…right? The old Levitical practices can be put aside because we now have Jesus’ example and proscriptions to follow. The law is the same; the practices are different…right? In other words, we don’t have to keep kosher, or purify ourselves if we become spiritually soiled in the way that the Jews used to before the coming of the Messiah. Am I getting this right?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Michaeljc4:

I think your comments are moving in the direction the Pope would recommend. Once Jesus is established as the new Torah, the problem changes; the question is no longer how to follow the laws given by Moses, but how to follow Jesus, how to be His disciples. Here are three more excerpts from “Jesus of Nazareth”:

[At page 70:] The Beatitudes are not infrequently presented as the new Testament’s counterpart to the Ten Commandments, as an example of the Christian ethics that is supposedly superior to the commandments of the Old Testament. This approach totally misconstrues these words of Jesus. Jesus always presupposed the validity of the Ten Commandments as a matter of course (see, for example, Mk 10:19, Lk 16:17). In the Sermon on the Mount, he recapitulates and gives added depth to the commandments of the second tablet, but he does not abolish them (cf. Mt 5:21-48). To do so would in any case diametrically contradict the fundamental principle underpinning his discussion of the Ten Commandments: “Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Mt 5:17-18). This statement, which only *appears *to contradict the teaching of Saint Paul, will require further discussion after our examination of the dialogue between Jesus and the rabbi. For the time being, it suffices to note that Jesus has no intention of abrogating the Ten Commandments. On the contrary, he reinforces them.
. . .
[At pages 104-105:] The rabbi [with whom Rabbi Neusner is speaking] cites from the Babylonian Talmud: “Rabbi Simelai expounded: “Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative ones, corresponding to the number of the days of the solar year, and two hundred forty-eight positive commandments, corresponding to the parts of man’s body.
“David came and reduced them to eleven. . .
“Isaiah came and reduced them to six. . .
“Isaiah again came and reduced them to two. . .
“Habakkuk further came and based them on one, as it is said: “But the righteous shall live by his faith”’ (Hab 2:4).”
Neusner then continues his book with the following dialogue: “So,’ the master says, ‘is this what the sage, Jesus, had to say?’
“I: ‘Not exactly, but close.’
“He: ‘What did he leave out?’
“I: ‘Nothing.’
“He; ‘Then what did he add?’
“I: ‘Himself’” (pp. 107-108). This is the central point where the believing Jew Neusner experiences alarm at Jesus’ message, and this is the central reason why he does not wish to follow Jesus . . .

[After discussing political and social dimensions of the Gospel, the Pope continues, at page 119:] This brings us back to the Torah of the Messiah, to the Letter to the Galatians. “You were called to freedom” (Gal 5:13) – not to a blind and arbitrary freedom, to a freedom “understood according to the flesh,” as Paul would say, but to a “seeing” freedom, anchored in communion of will with Jesus and so with God himself. It is a freedom that, as a result of this new way of seeing, is able to build the very thing that is at the heart of the Torah – with Jesus, universalizing the essential content of the Torah and thus truly “fulfilling” it.

Hence, the old laws designed to maintain the coherence of Israel “understood according to the flesh” (that is according to physical descent from Abraham) were “accomplished” because the nation of Israel’s mission of bringing the Messiah to the world had been accomplished. The new laws maintain what is central to the old law, but the new laws now serve and protect the coherence of the universal Israel, the Catholic Church, whose membership is determined not by the flesh, but by adherence to the will of Jesus – obedience to His (many and demanding) commands. Hence, obedience as sons and not compliance as slaves becomes a mark of the new law.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Michaeljc4]

That’s a tremendouly helpful explanation. Thank you so much. Now…on the same topic, it’s my understanding that Christ wants us to do three (main, central, essential) things:

1. Love God.
2. Love your neighbor.
3. Make disciples of all nations.

Christ also wants us to be compassionate, and to work for justice nonviolently. Does that sound about right?

 

[John_Hiner]

That’s a tremendouly helpful explanation. Thank you so much. Now…on the same topic, it’s my understanding that Christ wants us to do three (main, central, essential) things:

1. Love God.
2. Love your neighbor.
3. Make disciples of all nations.

Christ also wants us to be compassionate, and to work for justice nonviolently. Does that sound about right?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Michaeljc4:

I would not say the above is a useful list or that it fairly characterizes the commandments of Christ. The faith of the Church is not easily encapsulated in a brief statement. Christ is a person, and so cannot be sliced up or summarized; He must be lived.

Be holy.
Take up your cross and follow Me.
Live Christ.

These are closer to essential statements of what Jesus wills us to do. Of course, without the help of the Church, one cannot make sense out of any of them or follow them in any concrete way. Pretty quickly, once one seeks a nuanced and practical understanding of these directives, one comes to the full text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a STARTING POINT for grasping what is intended.

The way to truly come to know the will and mind of Christ is through fully conscious and actual participation in the liturgy of the Catholic Church. This is “the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit,” as the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council teach. (See, Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14, 2).

Your question about what is “essential” makes it easy to appreciate why Jesus founded the Catholic Church as the means to accomplish His intentions in the world; anything less extreme than the Holy Roman Church could not convey the Holy Spirit to the world.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[catholicmarsh]

In the front of the missal book at church, there is a rather lengthy discussion of who can, and can’t, receive communion during mass. I was struck by how…legalistic it sounded; just the sort of thing that Paul was desperate to get away from. I couldn’t help but make the comparison between what I was reading about excluding non-Catholic Christians and Paul’s words about being justified by faith in Christ, not in works of the law.

So…I’m pretty confused. Aren’t all the rules and rigmarole in the Catholic Church similar to the legalisms and “works of the law” in Paul’s letters? It seems like we have put barriers in the way of the Lord’s Supper…and I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind.

Can someone help to clarify this for me? I am asking legitimately, not trying to fight or argue, but to have this explained. When I see the Protestants sharing communion with anyone who wants it, I can’t help but wonder if they might be on to something. I suspect this topic has been covered over the past 600 years or so…

Charity, please, in your answers. I am not a theologian, just a lay person struggling to figure it all out.

Well my question would be why would Protestants even want to take the Eucharist if they do not believe that it was the Body, blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ? Why would they care one way or another? When I was a Protestant I didn’t care what Catholic Theology was concerning the Eucharist, I simply acknowledged that some people believed that it was really Jesus, dismissed it, and moved on. To allow Protestants to receive the Eucharist would imply a unity that does not exist. It would also be disrespectful and dangerous for those who take it unworthily as someone said previously. This could be true for many things not just Catholicism. Only Mormons are allowed into the Mormon temple, it is out of respect that I don’t protest that I should be allowed entrance. I don’t believe in their beliefs so I don’t partake of their rituals, but I still respect them. Knowing what boundaries exist is a large part of respecting someone’s belief system.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Thank you again, John. You’ve given me much to think about. While I have your ear, can you suggest a few books that I might read to help me understand all of this? I have the Catechism, which I do read, and the Gospels, of course. What else? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[John_Hiner]

Thank you again, John. You’ve given me much to think about. While I have your ear, can you suggest a few books that I might read to help me understand all of this? I have the Catechism, which I do read, and the Gospels, of course. What else? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I have taken the liberty of replying privately to this request.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Michaeljc4]

Again, thanks.