Just a couple of observations. While I think it can fairly be said that legalism is a risk in every Christian tradition, the convinced and serious Catholic sees unity and indeed the Church itself as flowing from Christ — as gifts of Christ to His people. Good gifts, which have resulted in good fruit in many persons and historical periods. Now of course any good gift can also be misused, and abused, and alas that is part of the history of the church also — a church that is, after all, made up of sinners.

Too, depending on where you stand, the “scandal of particularity” can be seen as accruing to the Catholic Church, or Christians in general, or indeed the revelation to Moses (as Hitchens has complained).

If you were ever moved to inquire further, you could probably have some interesting discussions with Dave Armstrong.

Peace,

J

Thanks for your kind reply.

I’m obviously not surprised that “unity,” and tradition trump everything else, and that if I accept that as the foundation of my approach, I’ll be able to swallow any doctrine defined by the church without real recourse to personal conviction. For the Catholic, personal conviction is thatg Christ founded an institution that can’t be wrong in its dogmatic declarations or explanations.

It’s really an apologists dream. Christ’s words are believed by all Christians. But not all Christians believe the pronouncements of the bishop of Rome fulfill the commandment of unity.

The assertion of the Immaculate conception as dogma that MUST be believed to commune is, in fact, just an assertion that the RCC is infallible. And that is where all discussions will stop.

It’s why I respect and love your church, but can never acccept it’s claim that infallibility allowed me to commune in 300 a.d., but in 2008 a.d. it does not, because of all that’s been defined since.

Peace, John. And Dave Armstrong and I are friends.

MS

But in a nutshell, in John’s last supper discourse, Christ prays earnestly and repeatedly that all believers may be one - and He says that this will be a sign to the world that He was sent by the Father. Moreover, this unity is not a natural thing, but rather supernatural.

And Paul speaks of “one Lord, one faith”.

The importance of unity of belief is also, I think, seen very clearly in the early history of the church, with its intense struggles over right doctrine. The Nicene Creed specifically asserts that the Church must be “one”. (Indeed, the formation of creeds in general suggests that the question of unity of belief has always been important for Christians.)

Anyway, for all these reasons Catholics see unity in belief as extremely important, indeed fundamental.

Now, can fellow Christians truly be “one” when they disagree about what they believe?

The Catholic would say “no”.

(This raises the subsidiary question of essential beliefs vs. those that are not essential. But for all intents and purposes, at this point in the history of the church, belief in the Immaculate Conception *is* essential — it is now a defined doctrine. (Which in turn raises the further question of a true development of doctrine vs. a so-called Catholic “invention” — and this is indeed a complicated question, regarding which I would refer you to J.H. Newman.))

Turning now to the Eucharist, the reception of Communion is a profound thing, that can be understood on multiple levels. But one important aspect of Communion, in the Catholic view, is that it is a sign of unity of belief.

It is a sign of unity through the body as it were, in the same way that the recitation of the creed is a sign of unity, through speech. (In this regard, Communion could perhaps be compared to the marital act.)

But if there is no *actual* unity of belief, then the sign of unity that is the reception of Communion speaks falsely — it avers unity where there is no unity. But in this most important and sacred of sacraments - which Catholics view as “the source and summit of the Christian life” - no such compromise can be permitted.

A more detailed take on the subject of closed communion from Dave Armstrong can be found here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-are-non-catholic-christians.html

Why should I be required to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary in order to come to the Eucharist?

Okay, fair enough. I’m an occasional reader, and didn’t mean to breach the etiquette of your forum. I will just say in closing that there are answers, and good ones, to the several objections you raise, if you ever felt moved to inquire further.

You may be a new reader and unaware that Protestant-Catholic debates don’t bring out the best in me, so I really try to avoid them.

But to deal with two issues:

1. I don’t believe in infallibility anywhere on planet earth except in the case of Jesus. I realize there is a logical case and a case from apostolic authority and so on, but if there is one thing I believe no matter what my worldview, it is that there is no such thing as infallibility where any human being is concerned, including me and everything I write.

My parents were great parents, and they loved me and raised me, but they weren’t infallible. If my mom isn’t infallible, there are no other condidates.

2. The case for ancient Roman Catholic authority does not carry the water for the inventions of the RCC throughout its history. I know that we can talk all day about Marian dogmas and priestly celibacy and indulgences, etc. but the fact is these things depend on a continuing authority that claims an ancient authority. I’m never going to buy the idea that the Lord’s Supper wasn’t meant to be received in both kinds or that ministers were to be called priests or a dozen other things that are developments of tradition, and I’m not going to abandon a Jesus-shaped view of Christianity to include these things.

I prefer to be left in my invincibly ignorant Protestantism.
‘
Now….we can have a reasonable last word, but we don’t debate this “true franchise” question on this blog.

Thanks.

But when it comes to other sorts of inquiries - such as the meaning of key phrases like “kingdom of God” or “Son of Man” - I think the approach you’re suggesting could be very helpful, and even necessary, for making sense of scripture.

Re Newman - sorry if I seemed condescending there; I have no such attitude, quite the contrary, in fact. But have you actually read his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? It really cannot be dismissed with a bon mot.

Your comment seems to suggest that his historical research essentially confirmed what he already believed. But as you may know, that’s not the case. His study of the early church Fathers was the tipping point in what was for him a long and very difficult conversion process.

>You could just go ahead and say there is no Biblical interpretation apart from the dogmas asserted by Catholic tradition.Or you could say “What is one thing a Christian can believe based on scripture alone?” (If you come up with one, you’re a Protestant. Congratulations.)Or you could continue to explain how the reformation types can’t get over their need to get back to Jesus without the Roman Catholic Church’s entire doctrinal history in tow.You could just say the study of Jesus is basically not needed, as the catechism is right there on the table.Sorry for the snark, John. But this isn’t a Roman Catholic blog and it isn’t going to be. Assuming infallibility is a price I am unwilling to pay. I understand it, I simply reject it.<

Little humor there.

You could just go ahead and say there is no Biblical interpretation apart from the dogmas asserted by Catholic tradition. Or you could say “What is one thing a Christian can believe based on scripture alone?” (If you come up with one, you’re a Protestant. Congratulations.)

Or you could continue to explain how the reformation types can’t get over their need to get back to Jesus without the Roman Catholic Church’s entire doctrinal history in tow.

You could just say the study of Jesus is basically not needed, as the catechism is right there on the table.

Sorry for the snark, John. But this isn’t a Roman Catholic blog and it isn’t going to be. Assuming infallibility is a price I am unwilling to pay. I understand it, I simply reject it.

Michael Spencer wrote: “If someone is going to say John 6 is about the eucharist, then I’d like to hear a cogent case for how first century Galilean Jews would have drawn that from the original words as they heard them.”

Are saying that if such a case can’t be made, then interpreting John 6 as being about the Eucharist is wrong?

Because NO ONE understood what Jesus meant — not the disciples who left, nor the ones who stayed. Peter, speaking for those who stayed, obviously had no idea what Jesus was talking about — and yet remained on the basis of pure faith.

After the Resurrection, their minds were opened. By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, we see the Eucharist explained fully, as it is understood by sacramental Christians today.

That 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 indeed reflect a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist is, in turn, confirmed by the teaching of the early church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.

(Thumbnail reference to these teachings here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp )

Finally, in light of these later teachings (both of Paul and the early church Fathers), we can see clearly the Eucharistic meaning Jesus intended in John 6 — although NONE of his original listeners understood his meaning on that day.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have not life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

A hermeneutic of interpretation that turns on what “first century Galilean Jews would have drawn… from the original words as they heard them” may be interesting as a purely speculative matter, but I don’t see how it’s going to be of much use to Christians struggling to interpret the Scriptures TODAY, after the Resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

It is a Reformed instinct to attempt to scrape away what is perceived to be centuries of misinterpretation in order to get back to the original, true meaning. And although that instinct is in many respects very sound, the hermeneutic you seem to be proposing is, I think, misguided.

If you are trying to get at the original, true meaning of John 6, consider a study of the Fathers - the earliest interpreters of Scripture. Where they agree about the meaning of Scripture - across widely varying cultures and languages, across continents and centuries - it is indeed difficult to gainsay that interpretation. Which is not to say there are not many who will gainsay it, regardless (e.g., “The Fathers were wrong about the Eucharist in the same way Bob Jones U was wrong about inter-racial dating”). But there, in the Fathers, I would suggest, lies true north.

In particular, I would refer you to Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” a detailed and profound study of this matter, which is available for free in many places on the internet (including Google Books), but which might be better approached in an actual book form, given its level of depth and detail.