When history ain't really history . . .

A reasonably unreasonable conclusion …

“All that an insane person has left is his reason”– G. K. Chesterton 1874 – 1936

*****

All reason is circular. That’s a fact. False premise, false conclusion. True premise, true conclusion. It is just as simple as that. The theorems of science are presupposed to be factually true, and reliable once tested and proven as such; however, science at its best is only a blueprint on how we are expected to investigate reality.

The truth is, however, much of what we believe to be true—reality, as it were,  is just a matter of opinion, sometimes an educated guess at best. I have no quibbles with science. What I do have problems with, however, are the invested prejudices found embedded in much of what tries to pass itself off as pure science regardless of the disciple under consideration—be that, theology, history, or something else.

Purported truth, therefore, must be checked against the facts. Church history as a disciple is no exception, either. As any student of Church history knows, such history is loaded with outright forgeries, and revisionism is defended on the principle of throwing a better light on the subject at hand. By ‘a better light’ I do not mean a fairer assessment, or necessarily changing the facts— although, this is always a possibility— I simply mean this, that history is often filtered through the sieve of today’s standards, particularly as it pertains to the politically correct ‘hot issues’ inherent in contemporary society like racism, sexuality, egalitarianism, or social or financial inequalities. Scripture, for example, can, and is, often twisted to fit the mores of a convenient contemporaneity.

Sadly, however, this has been a reoccurring standard throughout history, above all is it evidence in sacred history. History is not just retold, it is retold with a theological slant in mind. Collins Dictionary, as a matter of fact, defines sacred history as “history that is retold with the aim of instilling religious faith and which may or may not be founded on fact.” Which illustrates, at least to me, that it is a reputation well-earned considering the fact redactors down through ecclesiastical history have felt justified to change entire passages to suit their fancy.

Further, what I have in mind is a reductionism that does not just try to simplify a certain passage or translation to say essentially the same thing, but to change its meaning entirely by injecting an acceptable orthodoxy into the text to comply with some perceived or otherwise real standard.

Rufinus Aquileiensis, a nemeses of St. Jerome who quibbled with him over the orthodoxy of Origen who to prove a point spent considerable time redacting much of the Early Church Father’s work to make him sound more in line with the theology of Rome—i.e., Pope Anastasius I (399-401). Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, part of which he also translated was redacted considerably, etc.

These are well-known fact, attested by William A. Jurgens, as well as Mark Vessey, from Cambridge another  well know scholar of the period.

Nor does it stop there. Take for example, Jacques Paul Migne (25 October 1800 – 24 October 1875) a French priest who took on the task of publishing volumes of theological works, encyclopedias and the texts of the Church Fathers, with thought of providing books to train young men for the Catholic priesthood. Problem is, he rushed these translations through at such a rate that he left a trail of questionable documents. Not that they were all wrong, but it does take some of the enthusiasm out of reading them because one is not sure of when on certain occasions something is bogus or not.

Protestants do the same thing. Need I go into that? Well, there is not a whole lot to go into prior to the 1500’s.

So, although I shall continue to read, I have sadly come to the conclusion that I cannot base my faith on history, it must have a firmer foundation than that.

Of course, we all know what that foundation is, it is the foundation of all truth—that is, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

[i] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/

[ii] Mark Vessey, 'Jerome and Rufinus', in Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, (2010), p325 

A Pentecostal Christian takes a second look at Mary

The Mother of Our Lord

I suppose one of the most distracting Catholic practices that continues to annoy the Protestant community is the adoration (which they see as excessive, and for all intents and purposes unwarranted) ascribed to Mary.

Doctrinal issues aside for a moment; however, let me see if I can help by suggesting that this prejudicial view of Marian devotions is, in my opinion, the same as judging Pentecostals by the practices of their snake handling cousins.

Next, may I also suggest that devotion is not necessarily adoration or worship; it may also result from fear as we seen present as a result of the Fatima aberration—also known as the aberration of Our Lady of the Rosary— when Mary supposedly appeared to three peasant Portuguese children and entrusted them with three secrets which reportedly involved Hell, Hell, World War I and World War II, and the attempted assassination by gunshot of Pope John Paul II (the details of which would be discursive at this point). However, providence would have it, the Lady of the Rosary (Mary) offered a way out which (not so surprising to the critics) included not just wholescale repentance, but a rigorously praying of the rosary, as well. Of course, we all know the results. Apparently, the faithful did not pray the rosary enough; because, God forbid that Our Lady of the Rosary could fail at such a crucial time as that. 

So, in my opinion—because of so far unproven practices such as this, we must set devotional practices aside when considering Marian theology. As someone remarked long ago, “What is, is not necessarily what ought to be.” However, after having made that comment, it should be noted that the Lady of the Rosary cult has a huge following, including the late Pope, now saint, John Paul II who credits her with saving his life.

On the same token, for instance, even a distorted and fearful worship of God although wrong does not necessarily negate the worship of God all together—any more than an excessive Mariolatry, rules out  a proper respect for the role of Mary, The Mother of Our Lord, in the Church.

The problem, however, for the Protestant community (although, not all non-Catholics or Orthodox like high Anglicans; and, yes, even Luther and Calvin) is rooted not in who she was, but who she is. For those that pray to her, she is very much alive—as a matter of fact, more alive than ever. Now, if to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, as Paul said, then we must believe that death for the saint is only a move; and in her case, a move upward.

Now, if these saints—modern or otherwise, are alive and present with the Lord, the reasoning goes, then why can we not also pray to them? Furthermore, they continue, the book of Hebrews tells us that we are surround by a great cloud of witnesses, those heroes and heroines of the Faith that have gone on before us—people like: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Moses; and, yes, a prostitute named, Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, and the list goes on and on to include Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets. Oh, my, quite a cloud, I would say. None-the-less, it is needless to say, that any one of them was saintly than Mary, the Mother of God’s only begotten Son.

Furthermore, is she not the second Eve, if contrasted with Jesus, the new Adam who is God incarnate? If not, the reasoning continues, then who is the woman in the book of Revelation, chapter 12, that was clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, who was pregnant and gave birth to a son, if not Mary? Neglecting, of course, to see that even though the vision appears in Heaven, it is on earth that all the action takes place. None-the-less, they are able to get around this by saying that Mary, since she embodied the Son of God—which makes her the Theotokos, the mother of God, also gave birth through Christ in a spiritual sense to all of God’s children. So, if you are able to follow this line of reasoning, since the Church is the Body of Christ, she is also the Mother of the Church which is composed of all the saints living and dead.

Convoluted to say the least; however, this is in essence what is believed.

So, when Protestant theologians say that the lady mentioned in above reference is the Church, they, of course will hardily agree, but they are not willing to stop there.

How then, do make sense of all of this?

We don’t, unless we are willing to admit that it is extra-Biblical, as it were to the naked eye. It makes perfect sense, however, if one is willing to accept the testimony of sacred history. There we find as early as the latter half of the second century. Here is what Father Matthew R. Mauriello writing on the behalf of The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute^[i], Dayton, Ohio 45469-1390, has to say—

The first insight regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given by the Church Fathers was the vision of Mary as the New Eve. The earliest patristic texts regarding the Eve-Mary parallel begin in the latter half of the Second Century. St. Justin, the Martyr, (+165) in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, states that, "Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent ...in the same way it had originated."

The name Eve is taken from the Hebrew word, HAWAH, a verb which means "to live." "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living."(Gen. 3:20) Eve, the first woman, was a virgin at the time that she was tempted by the serpent in the garden. Thus, Eve, a virgin, conceived disobedience and death, whereas, Mary, a virgin, conceived the Word in obedience and brought forth Life.

St. Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, (+202) is considered the first theologian of the Virgin Mary. He took up St. Justin's Mary-Eve theme and further integrated it into his theology. Therein, Mary is treated as the New or Second Eve who is the beginning of the second Creation or re-creation of humanity through the Redemption.

He wrote, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith." (Adv. haereses, 3:22)

Jesus Christ is the New Adam, the Lord of the New Creation (I Cor. 15:45-49) and Mary the New Eve who undid what the first Eve had done. The first Eve disobeyed God and thereby brought sin and death into the world. The New Eve, Mary, obeyed and believed God's message which was given to her at the Annunciation (Lk .1:26-38), and brought salvation and life to the world in her son, Jesus, who crushes the head of the serpent. Mary, like us, shares in this victory.

Tertullian (+220), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve-Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.

St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) writes, "It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God." St. Jerome (+420) succinctly stated, "Death through Eve, Life through Mary." (Epist. 22, 2 I). St. Peter Chrysologus (+450) picked up on this theme in his writings, "Christ was born of a woman so that just as death came through a woman, so through Mary, life might return."

In our own century. Pope Pius XII is responsible for the principle papal contributions on this theme. In the Encyclical, Ad Caeli Reginam. Dated Oct. 11, 1954, he wrote: "Mary, in the work of Redemption was by God's will, joined with Jesus Christ, the cause of salvation, in much the same way as Eve was joined with Adam, the cause of death."

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council recall the Eve-Mary parallel in the document on the Church. Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They quote from the Church Fathers, Sts. Ireneus, Jerome, and Epiphanius: "What the virgin Eve bound by her unbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”(L.G. 56)

In the same document, the Eve-Mary parallel is treated in relation to the Church: "For believing and obeying, Mary brought forth on earth the Father's Son. This she did, knowing not man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the New Eve, who put absolute trust. not in the ancient serpent, but in the messenger of God.( L.G. 63) We, the faithful of the Church are called to follow Mary's example of trusting faith and fidelity to the Holy Will of God."

Further, we find that—

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the 2^nd century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

(Thus, I find it ironic that we can trust [and quote] Athanasius on matters as delicate as the Holy Trinity, but ignore him on matters pertaining to Mary, the Mother of Our Lord.)

Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213 – c. 270) an early Christian teacher wrote: “Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.^[ii]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries, “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.”  (CCC 2676).

In summary, the strongest argument for the Old Testament type that prefigured Mary is The Ark of Covenant over which the Spirit hovered. Contained inside the Ark was the golden jar of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the table of Commandments—foreshadowing, some feel Christ as the Bread of Life, The  Eternal High Priest, and The body of Jesus Christ—the Word of God in the flesh. Thus, in the true sense Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant—which is illustrated in the charts below:

Mary as the Ark Revealed by the Items inside the Ark
Inside Ark of the Old Covenant	Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the Law—the word of God inscribed on stone	The body of Jesus Christ—the word of God in the flesh.
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness—the miraculous bread come down from heaven.	The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (Jn 6:41)
The rod of Aaron which budded to prove and defend the true High Priest	The actual and eternal High Priest

Mary the Ark as Revealed in Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant	Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
Traveled to House of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)	Traveled to house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the Ark (2 Sam 6:14)	John the Baptist of priestly lineage leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)
David asks “Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)	Elizabeth asks “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)
David was shouting in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam 6:15)	Elizabeth “cried out” in the presence of the Mary (Lk 1:42)
The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam 6:11)	Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Lk 1:56)
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark (2 Sam 6:11)	The word “blessed” used three times and surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)
The Ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the Temple (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Ki 8:9-11)	Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where she presents God enfleshed in the Temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

The Virgin Mary, too, is easily thought of symbolically as the New Ark of Covenant also overshadowed by the Holy Spirit who miraculously infused God into her womb, after which she gave birth to Jesus, the only begotten Son of the Father,  who became the Chief Architect of the New Covenant, Jesus, the Christ, and so-forth.

There are many quotations, comparisons and charts that I could provide because the early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, especially about her being the Ark of the New Covenant.^[iii].

For sure, Scripture is full of types; however, we as Protestants without a clear exegetical insight must not accede to our imagination in this regard—unless, we are willing to concede to sacred tradition and take the Catholic Church’s word regarding on this matter. Be that as it may, however, I do not see how we can take the Scriptures serious if we are not willing to concede that Mary was prefigured in the Old Testament by the Ark of the Covenant.

The remaining task, for me—at least, is figure out just what the role of Mary is in contemporary Christianity. That task, I am sure, will begin with a clear understanding of what we are to believe when we recite the Apostles creed and repeat the words—

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

And, further, how all of this is to be acted out as Christians.

Jim/--

---

[i] The International Marian Research Institute (IMRI) was founded in 1975 in affiliation with Marianum, a pontifical institute in Rome, allowing students to study in America instead of having to travel to Rome to complete their studies. IMRI's programs include a doctorate in sacred theology (S.T.D.) and licentiate in sacred theology (S.T.L.); students can also earn credits towards a master's degree through the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Dayton.

^[ii]Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius The Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

[iii] For a comprehensive collection of patristic quotations, click here http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/MaryArkPatristics.doc

Roman Synod on the Church, Evangelicals and Pentecostals

Bishop Denis Madden

1. The Changing Landscape of Catholic Evangelical Relations

The Second Vatican Council of the mid 1960’s marked a watershed in the Catholic Church with regard to her relationship with other Christian communities in the United States, as was true throughout the world. In the years immediately following the Council, the Catholic Church ventured into emerging and deepening relationships with many of the historical mainline Protestant Churches. But dialogue between the American Catholic community and the American Evangelical community seemed the furthest at reach. Separated by years of difficulties and mistrust built atop strongly held differences on doctrine, there appeared little immediate hope toward warming relationships between the two communities. An illustrative example is Harold Ockenga, the first president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who lead the effort to stop John F. Kennedy from being elected president on the basis that he was Catholic. 1

Yet the tumultuous years of the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, with the vast social changes transpiring on America’s cultural landscape, brought an unforeseen consequence. Evangelicals and Catholics increasingly found themselves as players on the same field, and often each other’s most like-minded and dependable ally. There were a number of factors that contributed to this phenomenon.

a. The sexual revolution and Roe v Wade.

The sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s brought radical social change in the US, iconized in the 1972 landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Many mainstream Protestant churches embraced the legalization of abortion and an ever-widening liberality of sexual expression and practice as the cultural norm in subsequent years.

Rooted in strong convictions about the sanctity of human life, sexual morality, and the role of the family in educating children, Catholics and Evangelical found themselves heavily engaged in related social issues, and in one another a partner with political and social will. Everyday Evangelicals and Catholics were encountering each other on the picket-lines in front of abortion clinics, on the streets of Washington DC marching for life, and before the public square defending the nature of the family. A rising cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals in the public square over values we both held dear was becoming the new norm.

b. The Growth of the American Evangelicalism

Evangelical Christianity experienced a demographic burst in the US throughout the 1970’s and 80’s, bringing an increasing numbers of highly educated Evangelicals to positions of greater political, social and intellectual leadership in the US. As a result, the Evangelical community began searching for deeper philosophical traditions and legal language to enhance its argumentation in defense of a Christian world view. They found much forage in Catholic social doctrine. Evangelicals were the first to comment on their surprise at the discovery.

Similarly, many Catholic activists found in the vast Evangelical social institutions, such as Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and the Evangelical home-schooling movements, energy, enthusiasm and models from which to borrow, learn, and imitate unhesitatingly.

c. Rise of the Catholic Charismatic Movement-

Since the 1960’s the Catholic charismatic movement has had a presence in the United States, perhaps reaching a climax in the 80’s and 90’s. While retaining a commitment to Catholic teaching, doctrine, and sacramental life, the charismatic movement introduced to the mainstream of the Catholic Church forms of worship and expression that appeared far more akin to Pentecostal revival movements than the liturgical traditions of our Church, emphasizing baptism in the Spirit and the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit and his gifts in the life of the Christian. In this shared experience, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Catholic communities were unexpectedly side-by-side with one another once again, this time in that which is most intimate to the Christian, in his worship. Pentecostal and Evangelical pastors spoke of their surprise to find a growing number of Catholics attending charismatic worship services on Sundays, only to arrive late or leave early because they were rushing to or from their Catholic Mass. Eventually, Protestant charismatic communities began to include well-known Catholic charismatic speakers in their rosters alongside protestant speakers, and vice-versa. 2 This dialogue of shared worship and spirituality went a long way to thaw age-old misconceptions and mistrust between members of the two communities, more easily able to recognize the person in heartfelt worship at their side as a fellow Christian imbued with the power of the Holy Spirit.2

Many Catholic bishops and pastors raised their eyebrows in concern over the emergence of the Catholic charismatic movement. But as the years went on, the presence of the charismatic movement in the US proved to be a force of revitalization in the Church. In many places the charismatic renewal gave birth to a new kind of “dynamic orthodoxy” distinguished for fusing the energy and evangelizing spirit characteristic of the Evangelical churches with a deep love for Catholic tradition. This became particularly attractive to the youth, yielding a new generation of faithful, theologians and vocations in every area of Church life. A phrase has been coined with increasing frequency in young Catholic circles: “Evangelical Catholicism.” Appearing in pastoral programs of dioceses and youth or university student movements around the country, the term is meant to describe a fusion between a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and an enthusiastic commitment to the spreading of the Gospel, both characteristics of American Evangelical Christianity, with a love and appreciation for Catholic traditions and life. This year, George Weigel published his most recent book by the title “Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church”3, in which he describes the future era of Catholicism with a vision that resonates with the same spirit.

2. Historical Moments in Our Relationship

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops held official dialogues with the Southern Baptist Convention from 1978 to 2000, engaging in theological discourse over topics such as the environment, poverty, racism, sickness and healing, scripture and salvation. Blessed John Paul II’s historic visit to the United States in 1987 was facilitated by Billy Graham who provided the platform and set for the papal event in the University of South Carolina stadium, and who attended the ecumenical service.

The 1994 document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” 4 and its 1998 counterpart, while not an official documents representing the United States Bishops but works of independent Catholic theologians and Evangelical colleagues, were landmark documents spelling out the need for Protestants and Catholics to deliver a common witness to the modern world on the eve of the third millennium.

Evangelical and Pentecostal individuals have joined Catholic individuals in sustained conversations on sociological and political research and theology. Jesuit Father Tom Rausch edited a book with help from Richard Mouw and others, Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future?5 Ronald Sider and Dianne Knippers edited a volume, Toward an Evangelical Public Policy, which included one Catholic voice. This was an important volume because it contained the statement that became the National Association of Evangelical’s policy statement, “For the Health of the Nation.”6

Institutes such as the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue of Baylor University and the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology of Loyola University in Baltimore have emerged, producing ongoing scholarship on Evangelical-Catholic relations. Georgetown University was host to the Evangelical-Catholic Dialogue on the Common Good and Public Policy from 2008 through 2013, convened by two of America's most prominent religious leaders; Pastor Rick Warren and Theodore Cardinal McCarrick.

Last year in Rome, Dr. Lamar Vest, President of the American Bible Society, became the first Pentecostal to address the Synod of Catholic Bishops on the New Evangelization, the 25th session since Pope Paul VI established the synod in 1967.7 Also addressing the synod was an American representing the Baptist World Alliance, Dr. Timothy George, Dean of the Beeson Divinity School of Samford University.8 While hardly a comprehensive study, these developments can be seen as signs of the times of a rising tide of Catholic- Evangelical relations in the United States.

3. The Primary Issues Catholics and Evangelicals Face Today

There continues to be an ever-growing list of issues which are of common concern to Evangelicals and Catholics in our nation today. We continue to be strong partners in the fight for a right to life from conception until natural death. We have stood together in the defense of traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. We collaborate on many social justice issues combatting poverty, discrimination, and injustice. And recently we find ourselves side-by-side in an increasing battle to protect the first amendment right to religious freedom in our nation, and a human right for religious freedom abroad.

4. Continued Obstacles to Catholic Evangelical Relations

There are still issues of real concern to our individual communities regarding one another. One such issue that comes to mind is the question of converts and how we relate to one another as fellow Christians. For the Catholic Bishops there is concern over the loss of Catholic identity in immigrant communities in the United States that are traditionally Catholic, as well as among the faithful in largely Catholic developing nations.

Catholics read scripture with critical tools and in light of a long tradition of commentary and application of scripture to daily life, acknowledging the teaching office of the church. Evangelicals hold to a belief in the inerrancy of scripture. This is a point of deep historical difference between us. While Vatican II may not have resolved the issue of the relation between Scripture and Tradition, it clarified it to the satisfaction of those Protestant scholars who were watching its outcome carefully, that it was moving forward from a position that was reactionary to the Reformation’s emphasis on Bible to one acknowledging a serious need for better study and scholarship. In recent years,

Protestant and Catholic scholarship in cooperation has made available better translations and resources.

As we look toward the horizon of Catholic-Evangelical relations in the United States, we can emphasize the positive if we allow ourselves to delve deeper in what we truly hold in common—the Word of God, our love for Our Lord, and our desire to see Him reign in the hearts of all men and in society at large. Differences in theology should not continue to be an obstacle to our warm and congenial collaboration as fellow Christians who, motivated by the values of the Gospel we hold dear, meet together side-by-side in the public square to combat secularism and relativism while building a more just and charitable society on solid Judeo-Christian values rooted in the natural law, with respect for human life, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion as non-negotiable foundational tenets.

---------------------------------------------------
End Notes:

1 Mark S. Massa, S.J., Anti-Catholicism in America: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2003), 77-78.

3 Weigel, George. “Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church” Basic Books, 2013.
4 http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals--catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-
2 Olson, Roger E. “Catholic-Evangelical Dialogue” March 4, 2012.
5 Thomas P. Rausch, ed., Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future? (New York: Paulist Press, 2000).
6 Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers, Toward an Evangelical Public Policy (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Baker Books, 2005).

7 http://www.news.va/en/news/presentation-of-the-synod-on-the-new-evangelisation

8 See the paper by Bro. Jeffrey Gros, “The New Evangelization: Unity in Proclamation and the Proclamation of Unity,” soon to be published. Vest’s intervention can be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_25_xiii-ordinaria-2012/02_inglese/b07_02.html#INTERVENTION_OF_THE_SPECIAL_GUEST_DR._LAMAR_VEST,_PRESIDENT_OF_THE_AMERICAN_BIBLE_SOCIETY_(UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA).
George’s intervention can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_25_xiii-ordinaria-2012/02_inglese/b19_02.html#-_Rev._Dr._Timothy_GEORGE,_Dean_of_the_Beeson_Divinity_School_of_Samford_University_(UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA)_

Roman Catholicism by a former Catholic

This evangelical ministry by Dr Joseph Mizzi is dedicated to Roman Catholics who desire to know how to be saved. It is our sincere desire to proclaim to you the Good News of Jesus Christ, because the Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

• Answers from the Bible
• Are Works Necessary for Salvation?
• The Forgiveness of Sins
• Baptism
• The Bread of Life
• Blessed Mary
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Assumption
• Mary Worship? (Mary Ann Collins)
• Evangelical and Catholics Divided
• Church Unity
• John Paul II and Benedict XVI
• The Worship of Images
• A Brief Guide to Catholicism Today (Alan Howe)
• Pope Benedict on Justification
• An Evaluation of Natural Family Planning

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a five-fold ministry or a four-fold one?

Your Question:

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a fivefold ministry or a fourfold one? In other words, does ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους (pastors and teachers) refer to one office or two?

My Answer:

When we read in Ephesians 4:11 is that "he gave…some, pastors and teachers." Here "pastors and teachers" refer back to the single "some," describing two facets of the same work.

Now, the big question is: Who were these apostles and prophets? For we find that the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Eph. 2:20 and further, even more disturbingly for we Protestants is that very Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15 Not, the Scriptures, mind you, but the Church.

So, I've got to be honest with you. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is a magisterium of one, I get a little nervous. Perhaps, it would do us all good to do a little research into church history and see what Christians before us taught; and please let's not start at 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses onto a Wittenberg Church door.There's more history before that, than afterwards.

Could we possibly learn something from our Catholic and Orthodox, yes, and Anglican brethren? What about the Apostolic Fathers— Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? What about the Greek Fathers—Irenaeus of Lyons or Clement of Alexandria or Origen of Alexandria or Athanasius of Alexandria? What about the Cappadocian Fathers—John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria or even John of Damascus? Oh, my, we can’t skip the Latin Fathers, either. There’s that old tongues speaker Tertullian and oh yes, another one called Hilary of Poitiers . . . whew, I am running out of breath. Oh, did I fail to mention St. Augustine, a favorite of both Luther and Calvin?

The point is, we don’t have to scratch out our theology like chickens in a barn yard. Most of it has already been packaged for us and is there for the taking.

Now, as far as the Greek goes believe me I have terrible trouble with a God who expects me to ferret out these truths when we have perhaps over 4,000 manuscripts to choose from, and again every Thomas, Richard, and Harold has his opinion on that, too. Surely, there must be a teaching magisterium besides old Tom, and old Dick, and old Harry. We have better resources that just that of someone with a correspondence school diploma from Podunk Hollow pontificating on every nuance that suits their fancy.

Some thoughts on Ephesians 4:11

When we read in Ephesians 4:11 is that "he gave…some, pastors and teachers." Here "pastors and teachers" refer back to the single "some," describing two facets of the same work.

Now, the big question is: Who were these apostles and prophets? For we find that the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Eph. 2:20 and further, even more disturbingly for we Protestants is that very Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15 Not, the Scriptures, mind you, but the Church.

So, I've got to be honest with you. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is a magisterium of one, I get a little nervous. Perhaps, it would do us all good to do a little research into church history and see what Christians before us taught; and please let's not start at 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses onto a Wittenberg Church door.There's more history before that, than afterwards.

Could we possibly learn something from our Catholic and Orthodox, yes, and Anglican brethren? What about the Apostolic Fathers— Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? What about the Greek Fathers—Irenaeus of Lyons or Clement of Alexandria or Origen of Alexandria or Athanasius of Alexandria? What about the Cappadocian Fathers—John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria or even John of Damascus? Oh, my, we can’t skip the Latin Fathers, either. There’s that old tongues speaker Tertullian and oh yes, another one called Hilary of Poitiers . . . whew, I am running out of breath. Oh, did I fail to mention  St. Augustine, a favorite of both Luther and Calvin?

The point is, we don’t have to scratch out our theology like chickens in a barn yard. Most of it has already been packaged for us and is there for the taking.

Now, as far as the Greek goes believe me I have terrible trouble with a God who expects me to ferret out these truths when we have perhaps over 4,000 manuscripts to choose from, and again every Thomas, Richard, and Harold has his opinion on that, too. Surely, there must be a teaching magisterium besides old Tom, and old Dick, and old Harry. We have better resources that just that of someone with a correspondence school diploma from Podunk Hollow pontificating on every nuance that suits their fancy.

Truth and where to find it!

Early in my career, I discovered that theology is never static— that is God’s purposes and plans are progressively understood incrementally over time, and from the very beginning this has be so. This fact, however, does not mean that truth—or as Francis Schaeffer used to say, “true Truth” changes; it simply means that we understand the essence of truth better.

As for example, it is safe to say that no conscientious Old Testament Jew, prophet or otherwise, in their wildest imagination while reciting The Shema: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) would ever assume a Trinity. That refinement must wait until the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and beyond for a clearer understanding and richer insights into this deep mystery.

Now, however, who would argue that historical fact? Certainly, I wouldn’t.Thus we can say in a real sense understanding God’s purposes and plans, and as a matter of fact, His very nature has and is in a flux of refinement—the testimony of which is found in the abundance of Christian opinions. The end goal of all good theology, however, is change to us, not visa-versa. For as any believer knows, He has declared

“I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
So with the poet we can say,
Change and decay in all around I see—
O thou who changest not, abide with me!
— Henry F. Lyte

Thus we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both the Father and the Son is the same God as the God of The Shema and affirmed once again when we read in Scripture that,

“Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, today and forever.” (Heb. 13:8 Phillips)

Which, to me indicates both a fulfillment of a Godly purpose as well as a further refinement in understanding His nature and purposes.

The big question is, however, ‘How do we know or understand the nature and purposes of God?’

Shall I cut to the chase since I assume that you are a Christian or otherwise you would not be reading this? The answer is that we depend entirely on God’s grace to reveal His nature and eternal intentions to us. This, we believe, He has done through nature and His Word as revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Herein, however, lies the crux of the controversy—that is ‘How can we know what we perceive and/or have been told is really true Truth?’ or just a product of a wishful imagination?

In a word, we accept what we believe is true Truth intuitively by faith—His Spirit bears witness with  our spirits that we are children of God. (Romans 8:16) Human reason alone, however, is insufficient; Godly grace is required. This I like to think of as God affirming the intuition which I believe the Greek makes clear in the verse just cited. I say this because the Greek verb (συμμαρτυρεῖ /symmartyrei) conveys the meaning of "bears witness along with"— meaning, in my estimation, that affirms the intuition.

Consider the Apostle Peter’s confession in this regard. Matthew says that—

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 16: 13-17 NIV)

Surely there must have been other mitigating factors involved, a gradual dawning, or a peculiar awareness that this man Jesus must be different, someone special; but the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Hardly. No, that intuitive insight came in a flash accompanied by an affirming revelation that Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of the living God, the long awaited Messiah.

Now, if we look carefully and are open we also find that God has continued this unfolding process down through history, up to the present time. Otherwise, theology would be stagnant, wooden, and underdeveloped.

This is not to suggest that God changes; but it is to suggest that our understanding does as of knowledge of Him expands in an ever increasing revelation of who He is.

God has not left us without a witness, however. The Church is the creation of Jesus, from whom it receives its authority; He gave authority to the Apostles to determine and institute doctrine, to declare the correct and false, to establish faith and morals. Paul highlights that in his instructions to young Timothy whom he had asked to stay in Ephesus to shepherd the fledgling fellowship in that city with these words:

 ‘[If] I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

Yes, the Church is that witness—not the opinion of some solo artist that decides that God has infused them with special knowledge that will enlighten the presumed theological idiots that by chance may disagree with them. Godly appointed authority? Never, these self-appointed magisterium of one have the answer—“Sola scriptura,” they shout in defense against any and all authority. And, for the information of any that would like to hear it, I would say that we should put them all in the same basket as all the other heretics out there. Surely there is a hierarchy of brethren to guide the church in all its fulness.

For me, I have submitted to the wisdom and leadership of my denomination which have prayerfully develop a statement of doctrine orthodoxy—albeit, a simple one; but none-the-less a sound one. I have a hunch that we are not through, but time is on our side and no doubt certain points will be fine-tuned in the years to come. As Dwight Longenecker says;

“Ironically, in rejecting an external infallible authority we are encouraged to embrace the most fickle and fallible of all authorities – our own judgment. We then cling to our opinions like a shipwrecked man clings to a splinter of wood, and before long, our opinions are unassailable. In the end we don’t have one objective, infallible authority but millions of subjective “infallible” authorities, and in this absurdity, we rejoice.” 

Remember, I am with you for the journey,

Early Church Fathers: Eucharistic Theology

It has been alledged by some well intended Christians that the real presence of Christ under the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) ceremony was a doctrine that developed late in Church history, culminating in the Council of Trent  (1545–63).  However in summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: 

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Personally, I find it difficult to accept such a literalist position, I do believe however that Christ  is truly present at the table with us, as He has promised that "where two or three are gathered to gather in His Name, He is in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20)

However, historically, from the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).


Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). 

Justin Martyr 

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). 

Irenaeus 

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). 

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). 

Clement of Alexandria 

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). 

Tertullian 

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). 

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., 
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan 

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). 

Theodore of Mopsuestia 

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). 

Augustine 

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). 

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). 

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). 

Council of Ephesus 

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

In Conclusion

Truly Symbolism is always based on realism, or if it is to be believed, it should be. Did Christ truly die for our sins? Yes, indeed, He did. Was His body pierced for my iniquities, and am I by His stripes healed? Yes, indeed. Was His blood offered as an atoning sacrifice for my sins? Yes, indeed it was. Has He kept His promise that, "Lo, He is with us until the end of the age?" Yes, indeed He has. Does, He live in my heart? Yes, indeed He does. By His kind gift of salvation am I assured of my Heavenly reward? Most definitely, I am. Then in obedience I pledge to remember His death, burial, and resurrection until He comes again by commemorating His sacrificial gift of Himself for me, once and for all time.

The real question is, however, is Jesus truly present in the wafer and the wine when I participate in this commemorative act? Yes, I believe that He is present in the process, but am I prepared to say that the wafer contains the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus in form as well as essence? In the sense that He is omnipresent, yes. And, is it not true that He dwells in me? Yes, it certainly is. However to objectify this form in the same way in which His earthly body was objectified and transform and posit Him in bodily form in the thousands of eucharistic services that are conducted each day seem rather unnecessary—not to mention impossible since God can not be divided into pieces—since God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. 

However, since I do not understand how something is done does not give me a right to deny it; otherwise, I would have to deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and a host of other miracles recorded in scripture. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church the following caveat is given for just that reason. It reads:

"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1350)

Although, this fails to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, it does none-the-less make the singularity of the event significantly a matter of faith. In good conscience, however, I can not as Zwingle did consider the ceremony in which the bread and wine are simply symbols or signs not unlike the symbol of a country's flag that invokes a sense of patriotism or a reminder of what a great country we live in. To put the Lord's supper in the same category of a memorial, say  for instance, like the The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. is not what I think Christ intended.

So for me, The Lord's Supper is not just a reminder, it is also a meeting place where I in communion with the Body of Christ (i.e., His Church) and with Him consider these signs as a reminder that He is indeed with us in the fullness of His presence.