Catholics Have it Wrong?

[Hisalone]

No - it is YOU who has it wrong.
This is another classic case of the Church Fathers having interpreted this text, believed and practiced it for some 1500 years until a few revolutionaries thought they knew better and changed the meaning.

**Do you honestly **believe that they had it wrong? Do you really think that it took 1500 years to get it interpreted correctly? I’ve never had a satisfactory response to these questions, so I anxiously await your reply.

As you stated: CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

Your original challenge was for me to show that John 6 was not talking of transubstantiation. Now that you can not refute me you have taken your polemics to ECF.
What do the ECF have to do with me?

Tommorrow I enter into a time that I wont be able to respond to posts, if it is an issue when I get back Ill pick it up.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What do the ECF have to do with me?

So here we are 2000 years after the fact. We are distant in time. We are distant in culture. We have no more resources available to us than the men who actually wrote Sacred Scripture. In fact, we spend a great deal of scholarly effort trying to reconstruct the “original autographs” and reconstructing through archeology and cultural studies exactly what the words of Sacred Scripture meant to those who wrote it and the early church.

All things that the Early church had without any RE-construction whatsoever. I happen to think that sort of study is valuable. It makes Sacred Scripture come alive. But in the end it’s only a reconstruction. In many cases we have the TESTIMONY of actual witnesses. We KNOW how they (the Apostles and the Early Church) interpreted certain passages of Sacred Scripture because we have their testimony! Why should I accept as more authoritative someone who espouses an interpretation of Sacred Scripture that was universally regarded as heretical until the 1500’s? Why should I reject the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch? This is what a student of the man who wrote the Gospel of John says about the Eucharist…that means he learned about the Eucharist from a man who was in the room with Jesus at the Last Supper.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians 4
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 7

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

On what basis, should I accept as authoritative commentary/teaching on the Gospel of John that declares that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper? (and that’s just ONE witness who wrote around 110 CE…there is lots and LOTS of evidence that this is THE way the early church understood the Eucharist.)

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Since Christ Himself said Unless you are born again who shall dare to doubt we must be rebirthed
Since Christ Himself said I am the door who shall dare to doubt that He is the door
Since Christ Himself said I am the light…
who shall dare to doubt that He is a light
since Christ Himself said I am the true vine who shall dare to doubt that He is a vine…

Your missing the point made in the context. Christ **took the bread and said “This is my Body”. None of the other times does he take the object and present himself as such. He does not reach for a door and say “I am the door”, He does not reach for the light and say “I am the light” and he does not reach for a vine and say “I am the vine”.

Yet this time he takes bread and presents it as his body. He takes wine and presents it as his blood. Had he physically presented the door, the light and the vine as himself, they would be so. But he did not. Only with bread and wine did he do so.

 

[elvisman]

Your original challenge was for me to show that John 6 was not talking of transubstantiation. Now that you can not refute me you have taken your polemics to ECF.
What do the ECF have to do with me?

Tommorrow I enter into a time that I wont be able to respond to posts, if it is an issue when I get back Ill pick it up.

Why do you say that I can’t refute you? I’m just showing you more evidence that you are wrong. It is painfully clear that you haven’t proven your point. You’ve only used the same old tired Protestant misinterpretations of John 6.

Goth_Catholic, Pixie Dust, Grey Pilgrim and Rolltide have ALL shown you just how wrong that position is as well.

As for your question as to what the ECFs have to do with you - not much, I guess. They were Catholics.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

As for your question as to what the ECFs have to do with you - not much, I guess. They were Catholics.

And disciples of the apostles and their disciples

 

[Rolltide]

Your original challenge was for me to show that John 6 was not talking of transubstantiation. Now that you can not refute me you have taken your polemics to ECF.
What do the ECF have to do with me?

The question at hand is whether the words of Jesus should be taken figuratively or literally. Since clearly the issue is up in the air because people continue to argue both ways, why would the interpretation of those people closest in time to the Apostles not be of utmost importance for clarification, especially considering that they virtually ALL agree on the Real Presence? Wouldn’t they be the people most likely to have the correct opinion?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Again I have never used symbolicYOUR ENTIRE POLEMIC IS FLAWED BECAUSE YOU USE IT IN RESPONSE TO ME.
You have used the false interpretation of 1Cor 11 that Catholics always seem to fall into.
The context is that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians in thier practice of the Lords Supper/Love feast where church was segregated by the haves vs the have nots
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

As living water said the context of the abuse does not limit the ramifications of the text. You choose to place your personal interpretation of 1 Cor 10 & 11 at the judgement of not only God but Paul who lived closer to the time of Christ and who knew better Christ’s intent.

Speaking of context I find it interesting how you ignore the commentary on verse 64 of John 6.

Do you care to comment on it or are you just going to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your view?