AN APOLOGETIC ERROR
When studying Catholic apologists, it is always refreshing to read a new slant that they give. When I quoted to a Catholic apologist the fact that the Catechism speaks of Noah’s ark as a type of baptism even though no one got wet, I was expecting a reply that repeated the Catholic idea that it was the ark itself that was the type, and the people were vicariously baptized because of the water on the ark.
What I actually received was something different from normal Catholic apology. My Roman Catholic friend answered that we know back in those days it was impossible to seal a boat so that it was waterproof. Noah and his family stood on the top deck of the ark, and they were sprinkled by the drops of water that leaked through the roof. Not the most astute observation, but refreshingly different.
Catholic apologists have long struggled with fact that for centuries the cup in Communion was withheld from the laity. They tried to explain that the Council of Tent decreed that body, blood, soul and divinity were present in both transubstantiated wine and consecrated bread, but this theory had many apparent inconsistencies. For one, why did Jesus pointedly indicate there was a difference, if both were the same in substance.
In Pat Madrid’s Envoy Magazine, Volume 7.4, pages 14 and 15, Tim Staples answers this question in a new way. He maintains that the apostles, as priests and bishops had to receive both kinds as priests have always done. Then Tim quotes 1 Corinthians 11:27 as follows: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
The King James Bible correctly translates this as “AND.” The context of the passage agrees with this. In doing so, Tim’s whole argument goes down that drain.