A Rebuttal to Matthew Rondeau - The Blessed Sacrament

This begins our rebuttal of Part 2 of “Why I am not a Catholic”. The Eucharist is indeed the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324 quoting LG 11).

John 6 is interpreted in the context of the Lord’s Supper, even though Christ was not at this time giving them instructions for the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, the Catholic interpretation is identical to the initial and incorrect interpretation of the disciples.

Apparently the “plain reading” of John 6 befuddled nearly every one of the Fathers. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ambrose of Milan, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, John Chrysostom, and too many more to list all believed in the literal presence. Also, it's interesting that John puts this teaching in the midst of the Passover, one year prior to Jesus' own crucifixion (John 6:4), which hurts Luther's argument rehashed here that there's no way St. John is speaking about the Eucharist. However, we should take a look at the text ourselves.

John 6:26-63 will be where I’m quoting from. Jesus repeatedly says “I am the bread of life” “I am the bread come down from Heaven” “I am the living bread”, etc. Then, the Jews protest, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (v. 52). Does Jesus say, “No no, it’s metaphorical.”? No, instead, He continues in His idea and states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” As if it weren’t enough, He again states: “My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” Pardon me if my hermeneutical gymnastics get in the way here, but I’ll just go ahead and take Jesus’ words at face value. Jesus does not just say that one must eat His flesh, He says that one must gnaw or gnash His flesh (ο τρωγων - the one gnawing/gnashing/eating). Interesting choice of words. In fact, the more people protest, the stronger His language gets!

Jesus' words in John 6:63 should not be seen as a contraction of His previous statements. Jesus did not go through the repeated attempts at explaining that His body was the real bread which comes down from Heaven to contradict Himself. "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Misunderstood, this is shocking. Did Jesus just go through a very lengthy teaching only to turn it on its head to say that flesh profits nothing? No, of course not. For one, as Christians, there better be a hope that Jesus' flesh profits something or else our hope on Calvary is lost (unless you're a modern Docetist). Jesus is discussing belief here. The Spirit is what provides knowledge of the truth (and Truth) (1 Cor. 2:12). Human flesh profits nothing, it does not provide the Divine wisdom and faith needed for this statement (Matthew 16:17). This is made obvious by vs. 64 - "But there are some of you who don't believe." Don't believe what, a metaphor? What's hard about not believing that Jesus is just talking metaphorically?


I quote the second part of his argument here:

We must also remember the accounts of the last supper in the Gospels, which are separate and distinct from this account in John 6. He tells them that the bread was his body, given for them. And then He tells them that the cup was the new covenant in His blood. There is also the command to “do this in remembrance of Me.” It is here that Catholic christology diverges severely from Scripture. The Catholic mass is not a remembrance of Christ, it is an actual re-sacrificing of Christ.

I'll try to be brief. "Do this in remembrance of me" is not "you know, keep me in your mind." The Eucharist was instituted on the backdrop of the Passover. When the Hebrews would celebrate the Passover years after the Exodus, the fathers would say to their families, "This is what the Lord has done for me. He has led me out of Egypt..." etc. Curious. The idea is that the Semitic idea of "remembrance" was not simply a psychological event, but was a reliving or a continual living of that event. Being Jews, the 12 would've understood what Christ here meant.

Also, the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. The CCC paragraph 1366 states, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it represents the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." Represent = makes present. The Mass is the making present of the reality of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to the faithful today.

Matthew then quotes from Ephesians 1:22-23 and states:
The body of Christ is comprised of the people who believe in Him, not a piece of bread.

Scripture also calls the body "living stones". Are we "The Thing" from Fantastic four? No...I wish. It's bad form to take a metahpor and make it exclusive of all other meanings.

A Rebuttal to Matthew Rondeau 1.1

From the last rebuttal I noticed that nearly everything I said was left untouched. So, I'd like to run through some points from the last post that went unanswered and give Matthew the opportunity to explain them (without throwing ourselves into a philosophical whirlwind).

For one, what did the Church do for the first nearly 400 years without a defined canon? Could the Church prior to that believe in sola scriptura?

Why was God able to inspire men to write infallibly, but not speak on matters of faith and morals infallibly? Is infallibility somehow particular to writing?

Also, an explanation was not given for either the 2 Thess. passage or the 2 Timothy passage.

A Rebuttal to Matthew Rondeau

Generally I try to keep things around here on the neutral side of things, not discussing my own faith beliefs and such. However, over on the blog "Splanknois tou Christou", Matthew Rondeau is having a go at the Catholic Church in a series titled "Why I am not a Catholic". We're up to part 2. He posts :

I am hearing of more and more protestants who are joining the Roman
Catholic Church. As I think about this trend, I am intrigued as to what the impetus might be behind such a move.

Later, he writes about the long list of reasons why one might become Catholic, none of which I'd endorse. For instance:

Is it the magical fixation with the belief that “corpus meum est” actually refers to a piece of bread?

For one, I don't know how magical one's fixation can be. Secondly, it does, in fact, not refer to a piece of bread. That's the point.

Or:

Is it the megalomanaical [sic] lust for a single leader that the Israelites had before they were given what they asked for in King Saul?

Leaders are not, in and of themselves, bad. What the Israelites did wrong is desiring their own leadership over God's. They were subverting the authority that God had established because it did not fancy them (perhaps something to think about).

Then, in "Why I am not a Catholic (part 1)" he begins his argument against the Catholic Church. I will here give a rebuttal as one of those formerly of the Protestant persuasion who has found a home with Rome (no, my rebuttal will not rhyme....or will it?).

He states:

For instance, my presupposition, first principle, axiom, whatever you want to call it, is that the 66 books contained in the old and new testaments - commonly called the Bible - are the inerrant word of God...I am not a Catholic because I place no faith in the tradition of the Church.

I have to ask: Why? For one, where is the idea of sola scriptura in the Bible? And where exactly does he get this canon of 66 books? Can he show me where in the Bible the list is? If the Church hadn't the authority to convene a council and decide which books are Scripture, then Matthew is with a "fallible collection of infallible books", as R.C. Sproul puts it. If he has put no faith in the tradition of the Church, I would hope he would stop using their NT canon.

Also, the idea of sola scriptura is anachronistic. This idea isn't even possible until the 4th century. Why was Peter able to write an infallible book, but not able to say things that were infallible that were carried on by his disciples? Is infallibility somehow particular to writing? Can it not pertain to speech?

As I've stated in previous comments/posts, that tradition was alive and well during the Apostolic age is a Biblical idea. For instance, 2 Thess 2:15 has Paul encouraging the people to believe everything that was passed down to them, both in writing and orally. Or perhaps 2 Tim 2:2 where Paul encourages Timothy to remember "that which you have heard from me..." so that he could "entrust these (the teachings) to faithful men who will be able to teach also." Sounds a bit like carrying on traditions.

On John 3 and Baptism he writes:

Relying solely on the Bible, and reading John 3, I conclude that baptism is not even in view here, but that being born of “water” refers to the first and natural way we are born from the wombs of our mothers, and the birth of the “spirit” is what takes place the moment we have faith.

The key here is context (as always). For one, Jesus' ministry begins after St John the Baptist's, who came baptizing with water. John states in Matt 3:11 that he came "baptizing with water", but that someone was coming after him who would baptize with the "holy spirit." Who makes a reference to "water and spirit"? Also, I'm unaware of the phrase "born of water" being used idiomatically for natural birth. And it would've been a tautology for Jesus to say, "Unless you exist, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus was cryptic, but not ridiculous. So, I'm skeptical that being born of water means natural birth. I think the plain reading of the text, through Christian lenses, is that Jesus is speaking of something that happens with "water and spirit", that is, Baptism. Secondly, I think 3:22-23 has some gold for us. After discussing these things with Nicodemus, what does Jesus go and do?

"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing..."

We seem to have a real emphasis here on Baptism. This isn't without reason. John places these baptisms immediately after Nicodemus for a reason. Also, I'll refer to my friends, the Fathers, who viewed this passage as a reference to Baptism: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.

We'll pick up Part 2 later.