Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[Schabel]

For me, this is only one piece of the puzzle, but one that must be considered on its own merit, without being confused and bogged down by the writings of those who came centuries later. That’s another topic, which I will no-doubt get into at another time. This, however, is not the thread for that.

This may be, but as soon as I open the door for that, then suddenly we get into 800 years of ECFs, which is something I’m not currently well-studied-enough to handle. And, in the past, when I’ve set limits to even three whole centuries after Christ (going well beyond those who directly knew the apostles), people still accuse me of being unfair.

Thus, at this time, I choose to limit evidence to scripture (or possibly other works of equal antiquity).

I think this is disingenuous to the extreme.

We should all acknowledge that there’s a difference of interpretation on things such as the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 6, correct? Well, we can argue all day long about the meanings (although I’m convinced of the merits of the Catholic position on this), and of course you’ll reject any Church teachings on this matter. So how about asking John’s friends what John meant? How about asking the people who were his students, his disciples, his trusted successors? Those whom John entrusted with the Word? Those whom JOHN considered to be “faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Ti 2:2)?

This narrows it down to THREE men: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Of course, you should also include the Didache (of uncertain authorship, but considered orthodox by the Early Church), and I’d also suggest including THEIR acknowledged first-generation disciples as well (this would be the generation that Paul was STILL referring to in 2Ti, the “others” who would be taught): Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Irenaeus. This gives us SIX men, generally agreed upon as “the Apostolic Fathers” of the Church. If that’s overwhelming, then you’re not too interested in finding the Truth.

 

[PC_Master]

Also in an earlier post you said:
I already know what the RCC says on the matter, and I do not concede any authority to that organization – therefore its words and decrees have no meaning to me currently. I’m trying to figure out if there’s even a remote possibility that scripture supports transubstantiation at all. If not, I’ll go on to exploring another belief I have. If there is a possibility, I’ll study further.

Correct, I said that. The specific reason I said that is that “the RCC says so” is often used as reasoning for the truth of a belief. This is just plain lack of scholarship and rationality to me, and thus I wanted to exclude a “because we say so” response.

Now don’t take disagreeing with you as lack of charity again. A robust and animated discussion/argument is not only healthy it is fun - so lighten up a bit -

I think you misunderstand – I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with me. The problem I have is when the arguments are not supported by reason, and things such as “schismatics”, “heretics” and so on are thrown around – this is pretty much ad-hominem attacks, and that’s what there’s way too much of here which I’d rather avoid.

I do not know whether to attribute these statements to disingenuity or confusion. When you say give me only scriptural evidence I question the sincerity of your desire to “study further” even if it is unintentional insincerity.

It’s rather simple – I’m not looking at the whole picture yet. I do intend to evaluate the ECFs…at some time in the future. For the moment, I want to start with scripture (which is an earlier source than the ECFs), and build from there. Thus, this discussion was designed to be only one part of a larger study of the subject. I wanted people to focus on this one aspect, to cover it fully, so that it wouldn’t be ignored in light of ten different people posting the same 20 or so quotes from ECFs, as is common around here. I wanted full and complete coverage of scripture on this topic first, with the intent to expand to more information later.

Is that unreasonable?

If you are going to build a bridge and you say give me only metalurgical infomation, I am open to no other information in designing it - but you are building it over a narrows in a salt water bay, if you do not take into account chemistry and it’s effects on how you place the piles and what the salt water will do to the concrete around it, you are going to have it collapse. When I said before that I rejected your premise it is just that.

True, but when you’re learning how to build bridges, do you start with chemical analysis or do you start with learning the general structure of bridges?

You never start with the completed model, with all details worked out! You learn, step by step, until you have all of the information. That’s what I’m doing here.

When I discuss things with Portestants I often see a rigid “either or” approach to a subject and we Catholics take much more of a “both and” approach.

I actually find such comments sort of offensive. They’re repeated over and over, along with comments like “we take the whole of scripture into account, and don’t rip out one verse to suit our needs”. However, the fact of the matter, at least based on what I’ve seen here is that Roman Catholics do use an either/or approach, and do pull single verses out of context…if it suits the argument being made. Also, to stereotype Protestants is just as bad as if I were to say that all Roman Catholics are Mary-worshippers. While there’s no doubt some truly are that, that cannot be said for the whole.

While people often shorten the meaning of Catholic to “universal” more fully it comes from two Greek words “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or in other words, that body fo doctrine which comes from the whole teaching of Christ, scripture and tradition, (What I have taught you whether by my words or my epistles as Paul said). That is why you are doomed, absolutely doomed, never to understand what Christ taught if you take ONLY scripture or ONLY tradition.

If the development of theology is essential to understanding Christ, I suppose you’re saying that the apostles were doomed as well. They certainly didn’t have the papacy as we have it now. They didn’t have the Latin Mass. They didn’t have a lot of things that the RCC now has.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

And even if your point did hold water, whose tradition? How do you prove, aside from your own interpretation (which obviously says that you are right), that your tradition is the correct one?

If you want to know whether Christ meant “transubstantiation” in John 6:48 and on it is pruident to determine the fuller explanation which he gave to the Apostles which they passed on - by preaching - to their disciples and the thing of it is, it is EASY to do - read Polycarp, read Ignatius and viola you have the Apostles explanation and can move on to your next point of inquiry.

Interestingly, I’ve read the text of several ECFs on the subject, and they’re just as much open to interpretation as scripture is. Who’s to say your interpretation is more valid than mine? Clearly, objective reasoning must factor into it somewhere.

Please accept my apology if I appear to speak with animosity or without charity. It is not my intension… or did you mean this thread in general?

It was mostly a general comment. I see very few here who are explicitly hateful to Protestants. I do see a number who are somewhere in the middle, losing charity, and becoming more concerned with refining their apologetics capabilities and winning debates than they are interested in finding and learning more about the truth.

I will also review my own comments and I look for areas that could use a better approach. You have used a candid approach yourself, so I thought it was par.

Admittedly, I’m less than perfect, but I do believe I’ve refrained from using terms like “Papist” or “the RCC is the whore of satan” type of comments. If I’ve said things that are truly unfair and uncharitable, please point them out to me. I’ve done that once or twice here, I think, and I’ve apologized for those instances as well.

I don’t mind people being candid. What I mind is people failing to listen and consider the possibility that something other than their own beliefs might be wrong. If you’ll notice, the majority of posts in this thread are spent illustrating the Roman Catholic view and how it must be right, rather than demonstrating how the model I presented is actually flawed.

Indeed reason and faith do not contradict each other. They cannot since they have the same source and work to the same end.

I should be more specific – reason does not contradict the true faith – that is, the faith which reflects God’s reality.

With regard to the Eucharist where do you find Catholic faith contradicts reason specifically?

To me, the biggest point is that this key portion of the faith (according to the RCC), had it been understood this way by the apostles, should have been clearly demonstrated in scripture, and yet it’s absent. The only words existing on the subject are minimal (far, far less than those that speak of salvation and moral living), and all can be seen as figurative without any real stretch of logic.

Incidentally, this is not the agenda you have professed at the start, but it is one of similar merit as the first. On your first post the challenge you put forth was to show through scripture that Transubstantiation is taught and now you ask if it is possible to objectively reason that it is true. Which would you like to address here?

Both are implicitly tied, because reason must figure into the analysis in either case. There is no explicit statement of transubstantiation, nor is there an explicit denial of it – thus we must use reason, combined with the data we have, to draw a conclusion.

8th century Eucharistic miracle, whether or not you believe the miracle actually took place, shows belief in the Real Presence by the Church in existence at the time, which would have been the Catholic Church. Therefore either Catholic Church Teaching, since it’s earliest days, until Zwingli corrected her in the 16th century, has misinterpreted John 6 as the Real Presence, or the CC holds a very Sacred Sacrament

Actually, all an 8th century supposed miracle does is proves the belief was held in the 8th century, not “since it’s earliest days”.

 

[abucs]

adoremus.org/0707SupersubstantialBread.html

 

[toaslan]

Hi, PC and everybody! I couldn’t visit for a while, and it was a job catching up, but I’ve now read everybody’s posts. A couple of comments:

I think most of the complaints against the way PC has responded are off-base.

1. If you think it beneath Catholicism to debate or explain itself, well, I am puzzled. How else, at least in this Forum, shall we be light to the world, salt and leaven in the food? How else but by exchanging our best ideas? This is the APOLOGETICS Forum–where we DO debate, explain, defend the faith. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it–(granted, always with a deeper purpose of closer union with God). This is not a CATECHETICAL Forum, where a teacher presents answers and conclusions and the class takes notes. In apologetics, when one reason is rejected, provide another–right?
2. If you reject the OP boundaries, again, I’m puzzled. Aren’t we supposed to stay on topic? You get shut down if a thread gets far enough off topic, right? The OP asks about scripture–not the ECFs, not other history behind this doctrine, not theological development, not Catholic catechism. And the initial post explained the scope further.
3. To have a tightly focused question is a gift–it allows a better, more fruitful exchange of positions and the reasons for those positions. If the thread is about everything, then it gets flabby right away. The limitedness of this OP, paradoxically, allows us posters to be more free by eliminating tangents and providing framework.
4. In fact we all owe a vote of thanks to PCM for opening this thread–it is a great run. I have learned and am learning from it, and I will go over it again when possible. He started with a tightly focused question of great interest; he has ably provided the tension of opposition in a broad field composed almost wholly of those whose positions are contrary to his own.
5. If some are bored with this topic–not another thread on the Eucharist?–I am not one of them. If you don’t have the positive energy for this exchange, then why linger? The ones who are here are enjoying discussing the Original Post.
6. If I recall rightly, it is true that PC’s set-up was not addressed head on:

What I mind is people failing to listen and consider the possibility that something other than their own beliefs might be wrong. If you’ll notice, the majority of posts in this thread are spent illustrating the Roman Catholic view and how it must be right, rather than demonstrating how the model I presented is actually flawed.

I remember at the beginning of this thread reading PC’s model and thinking that it was, well, flawed from beginning to end. How else to tackle such than to just start over… It seems to me that PC’s premises and interpretations have indeed been addressed piecemeal–I think it’s all here in the thread, PC, but maybe not as a direct answer to your model as packaged.

Maybe I will go back and recapture the model and give it another look in a couple of days when I can snatch time, unless someone else gets to it first. Maybe it can stand out in better relief now that we’ve gone through so much thread together.

Meanwhile, thanks to each and every poster here, especially the later posters who keep bringing up additional scriptural basis for transubstantiation! Catholics can just wallow in scriptural basis for this doctrine (leaving aside all the other basis there is), and the wallowing is good. A pointed thanks to PC for occasioning all this :yup: !

Respectfully submitted.

 

[JReducation]

1. If you think it beneath Catholicism to debate or explain itself, well, I am puzzled. How else, at least in this Forum, shall we be light to the world, salt and leaven in the food? How else but by exchanging our best ideas? This is the APOLOGETICS Forum–where we DO debate, explain, defend the faith. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it–(granted, always with a deeper purpose of closer union with God).

The problem here is with your definition of “apologetics.” It was never the Church’s intent to turn the field of apologetics into debate or a platform for the Church to explain itself. In Catholic theology apologetics serves one purpose, to use systematic theology to explain faith, not to justify why the Church believes. If you follow the lead of popes, bishops and theologians, they refuse to debate with non-believers. They are always willing to explain our faith using systems. If you attend one of our Pontifical Universities with the purpose of achieving an advanced degree in theology, you are subjected to several years of apologetics, regardless of which area of theology is your major. What you find are systems that explain our faith. While there are often lively discussions in these classes, they deal with the system, not the faith. It was these universities who developed and formatted apologetics.

To be consistent with our tradition, it is appropriate to set the boundaries of apologetics to explaning how we arrive at specific beliefs, because this is what true Catholic apologetics does. Observe the forum, Ask An Apologist. The apologists do not engage in discussions. They explain how we came to this or that specific belief. They use systems to explain the meaning of a particular doctrine. Therefore, anyone seeking to explain Catholic beliefs would do well to be guided by the approach used by our hierarchy and our systematic theologians.

This is not a CATECHETICAL Forum, where a teacher presents answers and conclusions and the class takes notes. In apologetics, when one reason is rejected, provide another–right?

This was not my experience studying theology in grad school. Our profs explained the faith and the logic that supported or explained what we believe. If we rejected the reason, the profs respectfully accepted our position and then you failed the class. This was at a Pontifical University. The Vatican has been so adamant about limiting apologetics to systems that clarify faith that it demanded a specific theologian who had tenure at the univesity be fired, because he engaged his students in such debate. It was the Vatican’s position that this only opened the door for subjectivism and deviation from the teaching Magisterium. My reason for pointing this out is not to be man, but to explain how Church authority deals in the field of apologetics. It’s a very rigid discipiine with very strict rules of engagement.

1. If you reject the OP boundaries, again, I’m puzzled. Aren’t we supposed to stay on topic? You get shut down if a thread gets far enough off topic, right? The OP asks about scripture–not the ECFs, not other history behind this doctrine, not theological development, not Catholic catechism. And the initial post explained the scope further.

The are two difficulties here. First, if you take this particular topic strictly using scripture, you have to take John’s entire Gospel, not just one section and you have to factor in how John wrote his gospel and why. When you disregard this and apply your interpretation to what John wanted to say and ignore how he wrote and thought, then you’re spend a great deal of time and energy going around in circles. Second, outside of Johanine theology, Ch6 can be interpreted in many ways. The OP refuses to look at Johanine theology and Johanine literary technique.

[quotes]3. To have a tightly focused question is a gift–it allows a better, more fruitful exchange of positions and the reasons for those positions. If the thread is about everything, then it gets flabby right away. The limitedness of this OP, paradoxically, allows us posters to be more free by eliminating tangents and providing framework.

I agree on the avoidance of tangents. However, you cannot ask the Catholic Church to explain a belief using strictly scripture. This is inconsistent with the way that the Church does theology. The Church has always done theology first from tradtiion, second from scritpure, and third from its own authority.

1. If I recall rightly, it is true that PC’s set-up was not addressed head on:

Observe and examine all of the historical and exegetical explanations that have been provided in response to this question, including a bulleted outline of Johanine Theology, which PC failed to address.

While I agree in the excitement that heated debate can generate, I also believe that we must do apologetics using the systems and protocol that the Church uses. If we change the rules for apologetics, we must change the name of the discipline. It is no longer the same discipline.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Correct, I said that. The specific reason I** said that is that “the RCC says so” is often used as reasoning for the truth of a belief. This is just plain lack of scholarship and rationality to me**, and thus I wanted to exclude a “because we say so” response.

Can’t you see your own subjectively glaring bias and other less charitable things here? After perhaps a dozen different lay people in this forum volunteered enormous time in multiple posts to help you understand the truth you have the audacity to insult everyone with a subjectively generalized judgement like this; while all along insisting and demanding more charity from everyone? I don’t recollect a single person here making a comment like “the RCC says so” as you charge as typical. On the contrary, most every Catholic here has bent over to hold you by the hand and share their own private insights with you and provided tedious reference to scripture. This was done out of charity and with substantial collective forfeiture of personal time to help you see things from many different personal angles and from a holistic “Catholic” perspective. Through it all your sincerity has been called on the carpet a number of times and now I do here again. But further I now call you on your objective credibility and even your rationality. I see you arguing with the same pattern of “because I say so” argument only you substitute the target from CCC with the great “I” of self. You do know what that makes you look like right?

Frankly, in your overstated complaint here you over generalize and attain a new level of hyperbola and cheekiness rarely seen in these forums. What you say here is as a backhanded slap at the intellectualism and sensibility of those here in this forum as well as The Catholic Church with over 2,000 years of her aggregate scholarly peer reviewed works and scholarship. This pedigree and authority eclipses anything ever seen on the planet; that is until you arrived on the scene.

To date The Church teaching has prevailed against every heretic and pseudo-intellectual who has ever dared to stand against her and call her wrong to her face or even indirectly through other fained mechanisms and proxies. That self evident track record alone should be sufficient to convince any rational person that The Church teachings are true, have stood the test of time and are unassailable by anyone without separating themselves from God.

What is not conducive to understanding or in garnering an aura of sincerity is putting on airs of superiority through dismissal of all facts and arguments as “insufficient”. Pardon me for so saying but you act as if you think you are somehow unique and above The Church; yet you offer no objective evidence of your own that is sufficient to intelligently counter what has been repeatedly presented ad nauseum. If you can’t believe what has been presented then it is better to say simply “I respectively can’t understand what you say or believe that” rather than put on intellectual airs and dismissive tones.

Can you yourself offer something superior to or at least different from the very thing you complain about above? Can you offer anything other than the same old patten of “what you Catholics say is not true because I say it’s so”? Do you know how absurd it looks when you complain about that very same thing that you yourself do? Is it any wonder many here question your sincerity in these forums?

Catholicism offers thousands of years of peer reviewed teaching, insight and scholarship. If you were truly objective and honest with yourself you would see that you offer only to substitute a personal private subjective criteria for The Church’s superior objective-faith criteria. Note that The Church’s teaching is backed with hard scripture promises of infallibility and unassailability (e.g. the gates of hell shall not prevail). Do you think Catholics have it all wrong or do you think the scripture apply to your own private Church of One?

The bottom line:
Either you believe **all **of scripture or you do not believe any of scripture. You can’t rationally hold a thing sacrosanct at the same time you assail it. As others here have intimated, its time to give up the pretense of holding a superior objective high ground; and I would add the self illusion of sincerity in seeking the truth. In light of all this do you really want to trust yourself over the wisdom and pedigree of The Church?

James

 

[qui_est_ce]

Definition of Transubstantiation:
Thus, Transubstantiation, as a doctrine formalized by the Council of Trent, is the how the Real Presence comes to be, not the fact of the Real Presence. The Real Presence is Biblical, Transubtantiation is the rationalisation

PC, your OP confuses Real Presence. with Transubstantiation.

Who’s to say your interpretation is more valid than mine?

A Catholic would answer that it is the Authority of the CC under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised in Scripture, but to take it a step further, Martin Luther himself came to this realization when he said, “any milkmaid can interpret Scripture”

Clearly, objective reasoning must factor into it somewhere

It is not clear to me that objective reasoning is the answer to your dilemma. In fact, I sincerely believe that objective reasoning will lead you away from the Truth. The influence of the Age of Reason on the French Revolution and the subequent denial of Christianity, nay, rational anti-Christian culture which spread in France and the world at large today.

Interestingly, I’ve read the text of several ECFs on the subject, and they’re just as much open to interpretation as scripture is. .

Scripture was not even defined until 393, after the first attempts by Pope St. Damasius I to commission St. Jerome to undertake his famous revision of the earlier Latin versions of the Bible in approx 385.

To me, the biggest point is that this key portion of the faith (according to the RCC), had it been understood this way by the apostles, should have been clearly demonstrated in scripture, and yet it’s absent. The only words existing on the subject are minimal (far, far less than those that speak of salvation and moral living), and all can be seen as figurative without any real stretch of logic.

How more clearly anywhere in Scripture is a quote repeated for several verses in response to objections? I have tried - unsuccessfully - to understand your confusion on this point. The fact that Jesus calls us to feed on His flesh repeatedly, and show us how at the Last Supper is a far cry from what you state.

Actually, all an 8th century supposed miracle does is proves the belief was held in the 8th century, not “since it’s earliest days”.

8th century Eucharistic miracle, whether or not you believe the miracle actually took place, shows belief in the Real Presence by the Church in existence at the time, which would have been the Catholic Church. Therefore either Catholic Church Teaching, since it’s earliest days, until Zwingli corrected her in the 16th century, has misinterpreted John 6 as the Real Presence, or the CC holds a very Sacred Sacrament

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Also verified by WHO in 1973
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#The_miracle_of_Lanciano

Please explain to me how the teachings of the Real Presence in the 8th Century developed independently of the teaching of the Real Presence in the 1st century"Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.]St Epistle of St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans.

St Ignatius of Antioch was born around the year 50, martyred for the faith around the year 98, and was a student of St. John the Apostle

 

[Catholic_Author]

PCM, et al,

OK, I understand the parameters of this question.

1. Use scripture as a reference
2. No extra biblical references (With the understanding that all the books of the second canon are fair game)
3. Use standards of logic amenable to sound reason.

Fine. Let’s examine the whole of John Chapter Six. The context is entirely the miracle of the loaves and fishes. What should we understand form this miracle and the circumstances surrounding it?

The Prolog/Preface - The context of the entire chapter is A) that the food which man has is insufficient. B) that the bread Jesus gives is real, miraculous, sacred, and is a communal meal C) That Jesus himself is praised, even worshiped in this act, D) people are amazed at His presence

People want a show and a sign (v2) - People were already following him “because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick.” They were looking for signs and miracles, not just proof of his power but a show of it. This prefigures the Mass where people come specifically for the miracle of the Eucharist. The food that man has is insufficient and Jesus tests Philip on this (v5-9) - Jesus tests Philip by asking him “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?” A boy supplies five barley loves and two fish. This is far short of what would ordinarily be needed to feed five thousand. This prefigures that work of human hands that will become spiritual food as it does at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is showing that real food will become real spiritual food. The miracle work of Jesus is absolutely necessary for the five thousand to be fed on real food from what is available. He gives them instructions, which they follow. All are fed to the full, which requires real food. This prefigures the communal meal aspect of the Eucharist where all are satisfied. (v10,11). It is important not to waste the fragments, which when recovered are far greater than what the boy provided. (v 12,13). The “leftovers” are not to be wasted possibly because they are miraculous. Whether or not they are saved for that reason they are in fact set aside or reserved. This is one aspect of the meaning of sacred, that some things are set apart, just as the Eucharist is reserved in the tabernacle. They are also super abundant so they are in a sense extra-ordinary or extraordinary. This prefigures the sacramental nature of the Eucharist where grace is given. In this act Christ is praised as “the one who is to come into the world.”(v14,15). The praise is specifically for coming into the world at the miracle of the loaves. This prefigures worship for His real presence in the Eucharist. The people are amazed because Jesus arrived at the Synagogue in Capernaum by a means which they know not (v 22-25). He is in the Synagogue when he teaches about His body and Blood, when they are startled at His presence. So, Jesus is present to the people in a non-revealed way. This prefigures the substantive change that is not visible in Eucharist. One can also see that the Synagogue is a place of worship such that the proper act of man toward the Bread of Life is worship.

Jesus’ Explanation/comparison - Jesus compares the reality of his miracle feeding of the five thousand with the reality of the miracle of His own flesh. He explains that, A) The people now seek him for material reasons; they want to be fed again. B) Man can do the work of God, can co-operate with God, can be obedient C) The Father’s bread gives life to the world. D) Jesus is the everlasting bread E) Everlasting life that He gives comes through three essentials 1. faith that Jesus is the bread from heaven 2. eating the bread from heaven, feeding on Him 3. through resurrection F) Those who do not eat do not have life within them. G) To have life we must feed on Him

Jesus explains that man should do the work of God that man should participate in His will by believing what he is telling them (v 27), the same way a priest can consecrate the host… by co-operating with Christ. They test him further by asking what Jesus can do instead of accepting, instead of cooperating. So Jesus explains how all of these things foreshadow and prefigure the greater gift of bread, the gift of himself that Jesus will give. He explains how He is the fulfillment of the Manna from Heaven and He does this in response to a request for everlasting bread like the bread the people received the prior day. He is saying that the bread He will give is greater than the bread they received yesterday and greater than the bread that their ancestors ate (v31-33, 58). . If the eternal food Jesus is going to give will be more than the real bread he already miraculously gave them then it must be everything the first bread is plus more. Anything less will not be greater than the first bread. Therefore it must be super-real, real and more than real. In a sense it must be both body and spirit the same way that the Eucharist is the Body/Blood and Soul/Divinity of Christ. To receive this bread we must feed on Him (v 57). In other words, in order to have life we must really eat this miraculous Bread of Life.

to be continued…

 

[Catholic_Author]

Continued…

Explanation to the disciples - Jesus explains to the disciples in plain words as He has done in times past when they did not fully understand His parables. A) It is shocking but true. B) His ascension is proof that He is the bread from heaven C) This teaching is life to believers as spirit is life to the body D) The one who does not believe this teaching betrays Jesus E) Many disciples refuse to accept and they leave F) the twelve remain and Peter professes that Jesus words are eternal life G) The betrayer remains among them.

The words that Jesus has said are shocking even to the disciples and even after Jesus’ explanation, which contains no different wording except that they are spirit and life whereas earlier He explained them entirely as life. The fact that they are now both spirit and life takes nothing away but adds meaning, which means that what was body before is now a greater body, what had no spirit and no life before now has the greatest spirit and life. Jesus helps the disciples to understand by using a term they are familiar with and which they understand; spirit. Some groups in Jesus day, such as the Sadducees, did not believe in angels, spirits or the resurrection. Jesus chose to reserve this expression for the believers since He had already spoken to the people at Capernaum using words concerning the resurrection and in connection with the life that His bread gives. He evidently thought it was enough to speak of rising up on the last day without mentioning spirits as well. What he said was enough to test them to the point where they turned away. It wasn’t necessary to go any farther explaining the truth to people who didn’t believe, so he didn’t use the word spirit. But to the believers, who were not like the Sadducees or those who came to Capernaum asking for works and signs, Jesus explains about His Spirit. He asks if they will believe He is the Bread that came from Heaven if they see Him ascend to heaven, such that His ascension proves that His native home is with the Father, that his spirit is the same as the Father. Peter affirms that no matter how difficult this teaching is it is still the truth that gives life because it is the teaching of Christ who comes from God. He affirms that He understands that Jesus is one with God, is literally the bread of life. Judas remains among them, which shows that it is possible to claim to understand this mystery mistakenly. The mistaken one is the one who betrays Jesus. In the same way a person who does not accept this teaching but receives the Eucharist commits sacrilege.

Now please understand that I am explaining this candidly and am not pointing fingers or making judgments. This is the best I can do at this time. I hope it helps you on your faith journey and I will continue to pray for you.

 

[pneuma07]

I think most of the complaints against the way PC has responded are off-base.

1. In fact we all owe a vote of thanks to PCM for opening this thread–it is a great run. I have learned and am learning from it, and I will go over it again when possible. He started with a tightly focused question of great interest; he has ably provided the tension of opposition in a broad field composed almost wholly of those whose positions are contrary to his own.
   .

Dear Toaslan and dear JR,

while a debate that could develop from your last posts could go certainly off-topic, i like to say I greatly appreciated both of them. More on the point :
My attitude is to subscribe both the quoted parts and other ones in Toaslan’s post, since he gives there what my own perception on the thread is. But I feel the need to elaborate, since I guess we have to duly consider the perspective offered by JR, with his experience.

My question here becomes then the very meaning of the term “Apologetics”, and that would lead us definitely out of this thread. The general perception about that, to be as short as I can here, is that the main difference between cathechetical and apologetical work, is that with the former people already within the Church are addressed, while the latter is towards those who are outside, and not necessarily sympatethic with her. Towards whose legitimate questions and doubts we have to defend ( as well as we can) the catholic doctrine.

Does that mean stopping after a first exposition, or going on and on ever addressing new questions arising from our own illustrations ? Is according to you the former behavior more correct or the latter ( or something in between) ?
My apology if the question is not correctly illustrated here, and if I
can lead too far off topic. Thanks in advance to JR, Toaslan or anyone going to answer.

BTW I saw several beautiful conversion stories where the new catholic tells of a guy who patiently and insightfully had engaged
him/her precisely in the second way, ie by addressing every single new doubt. Was that apologetics or what else ?

 

[toaslan]

Dear Toaslan and dear JR, the main difference between cathechetical and apologetical work, is that with the former people already within the Church are addressed, while the latter is towards those who are outside, and not necessarily sympatethic with her. Towards whose legitimate questions and doubts we have to defend ( as well as we can) the catholic doctrine.

Does that mean stopping after a first exposition, or going on and on ever addressing new questions arising from our own illustrations ? Is according to you the former behavior more correct or the latter ( or something in between) ?

You are right, pneuma–apologetics is aimed at those outside the Church, those who do not accept her authority, those who disagree with her teachings. Of course, then, one cannot deliver pearls from the mountain–one is offering reasons which might hope to meet the other where that other is–not where one is.
JR:

It was never the Church’s intent to turn the field of apologetics into debate or a platform for the Church to explain itself.

JR, please know that others here, such as I, have done graduate work in catechetics. With respect, I find your emphasis misplaced: it is not the Church Herself who runs these forums; the hierarchy does not own Catholic Answers, nor are the many new books pouring out on apologetics being produced by the Vatican. I see the energy for apologetics as generated by laymen; it is our job, and our proper sphere, and those who offered PC good reasons from scripture to accept transubstantiation are doing good apologetics on this thread.

James, sorry friend, but for some reason your posts are abusive, so the first whiff of that and I stop reading you and move on to the next post. Pax.

pneuma:

BTW I saw several beautiful conversion stories where the new catholic tells of a guy who patiently and insightfully had engaged him/her precisely in the second way, ie by addressing every single new doubt. Was that apologetics or what else ?

Pneuma, sounds like apologetics–explain, defend–to me! Without respect, apologetics has no hope of persuading, because by its nature it requires listening and mutual exchange. Those frustrated are likely frustrated by their own inability to quickly persuade.

Catholic Author, thanks for this:
catholicAuthor:

He is saying that the bread He will give is greater than the bread they received yesterday and greater than the bread that their ancestors ate (v31-33, 58). . If the eternal food Jesus is going to give will be more than the real bread he already miraculously gave them then it must be everything the first bread is plus more. Anything less will not be greater than the first bread. Therefore it must be super-real, real and more than real.

and this
catholic author:

The words that Jesus has said …are now both spirit and life takes nothing away but adds meaning, which means that what was body before is now a greater body, what had no spirit and no life before now has the greatest spirit and life.

Really good–this point has been raised before in this thread, but you have strongly highlighted it.

A point I miss from PC is how to understand the positioning of the Bread of Life between two literal miracles–the manna and the Resurrection. By using the manna to explain the Bread of Life; by bookending it with the Resurrection, Jesus is saying that the Bread of Life is of the same kind with these Signs. And of what kind are these Signs? They are the kind of signs which are/effect/personify that which they signifiy!

Otherwise the speech is disjointed, without flow. Right?

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Catholic Church since the beginning of time has had Philosophers debating rationalizing Truths taught in the Bible and the practices of the early Christians.

'*The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the . * ’

New Advent.org

 

[qui_est_ce]

My question here becomes then the very meaning of the term “Apologetics”, and that would lead us definitely out of this thread. The general perception about that, to be as short as I can here, is that the main difference between cathechetical and apologetical work, is that with the former people already within the Church are addressed, while the latter is towards those who are outside, and not necessarily sympatethic with her. Towards whose legitimate questions and doubts we have to defend ( as well as we can) the catholic doctrine.

Yes, apologetics is an attempt to explain the Catholic point of view. This is a Catholic Forum set up to defend the Teachings of her Church. PCM is challenging us to defend Catholic teaching, which we, most of us not theologians are attempting to do, so yes, we will have our Roman lenses on and will not take them off. BTW, this is a sub thread of Apologetics, not the Protestant thread.

Which is why PC’s request below, will never be satisfied on this forum:
PC:

What I mind is people failing to listen and consider the possibility that something other than their own beliefs might be wrong. If you’ll notice, the majority of posts in this thread are spent illustrating the Roman Catholic view and how it must be right, rather than demonstrating how the model I presented is actually flawed

Having said that, I do enjoy learning what other denominations teach, but I can only defend my own faith, and my intent is not to debunk another’s. That can only be concluded by the person examining the evidence the Church has for her Teaching.

PC and other Protestants, I cannot explain every theological Teaching of the Church, I don’t even know every single teaching, but I do have a pretty good idea of where to go for an Authoritative explanation, should I have a dilemma. There are thousands of treatises on how the Church developed her Doctrines, too much to be presented here, but you will find New Advent.org to be a good starting point of why the Church teaches what she does if that’s what your are interested in. I find it readable with links for those who wish to go more in depth. I have also found it willing to examine the facts and cite it’s sources. That’s the best any of us lay people can do.

I am no theologian nor am I an expert on logic, so I hope you understand my humble attempts at explaining how Catholics view Church teaching:
pc:

Interestingly, I’ve read the text of several ECFs on the subject, and they’re just as much open to interpretation as scripture is.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying they are merely open to interpretation, or that they deny the Real Presence? If the latter, that would be illogical since a person who teaches against the Church could not be a father of the Church. If the former, yes, they were still figuring out how to carry on. The Catholic Church allows for free interpretation of verses within the framework of her Teachings. She does not interpret Teaching verse by verse.
PC:

Who’s to say your interpretation is more valid than mine? Clearly, objective reasoning must factor into it somewhere.

Transubstantiation, which is the substance of your original OP, is the rational explanation for the HOW of the appearance (unleavened bread and wine) mystery of the Real Presence. It does not explain the Real Presence. A mystery, by definition cannot be rationally explained. It can only be rationally deduced that the mystery exists. That is where Faith comes in.

More examples along these lines of reasoning
Trinity
The Trinity exists, it does not say so specifically in the Bible, but there is a rational explanation for why there SHOULD be belief in the Trinity. JW’s do not accept the divinity of Christ, yet they use the Bible (admittedly altered, but who is to say there’s is wrong and ours is right? They will give you “proofs” from Greek translations, but I do not accept these proofs).

The Incarnation
How can a person be both God and Human? There is ample evidence from Bible that this is so, but it is still a Mystery.

Rationality produced Dogma, which is the tree that grew from the mustard seed, the Kerygma, given us in the Bible.

 

[qui_est_ce]

pc:

Who’s to say your interpretation is more valid than mine? Clearly, objective reasoning must factor into it somewhere.

How do you even know the Bible a correct compilation of divinely inspired books? That all the books in it are indeed the complete and only divinely inspired writings?
Hope the following helps with your theory that objective reasoning is a factor:

How was it determined that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John should be accepted as Divinely inspired? They are differently worded. Only John’s Gospel has the story of the changing water in win. Only John’s Gospel is missing the story of Jesus Temptation in the Wilderness. John’s Gospel gives no account of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, the other three include it.

Only Matthew and Luke have the Sermon on the Mount. In Luke’s version, (Luke 6:17) And he came down with them and stood on a level place (RSV) . In Mathews Gospel (Matthew 5:1) When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain!

Only Mark and Luke have the Ascension story. And these are the universally accepted books.

Luke begins his Gospel “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us.” (Luke 1:1, NAB Who are these many? We know there was a Gospel of Thomas the the Proto-evangelium of James. How was it decided there should be four, not one really truer one? Not 5, not six? We can logically conclude there was “no small debate” about this.

The Bishop of Lyons, Irenæus (died 202) is the only explicit account of why there are four Gospel. He not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, but argues that they must be just four, no more and no less.

He says: “It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. ***For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord” ***(Adv. Hær., III, xi, 8).

How logical is that? Yet we accept the Tradition!

Peace to all who spend many hours researching and posting.

 

[Catholic_Author]

A point I miss from PC is how to understand the positioning of the Bread of Life between two literal miracles–the manna and the Resurrection. By using the manna to explain the Bread of Life; by bookending it with the Resurrection, Jesus is saying that the Bread of Life is of the same kind with these Signs. And of what kind are these Signs? They are the kind of signs which are/effect/personify that which they signifiy!

Otherwise the speech is disjointed, without flow. Right?

Amen. But I think it is three miracles. There is also the ascension I mentioned this in posts #217 and #210 in this thread.

I would reserve that these signs are what they signify for the bread of life miracle only since the Eucharist is the only one of the sacraments that *is *the grace it imparts. The other signs signify the grace conferred through them and so *effect *and personify are appropriate. Jesus’ explanation that He is the bread, life and spirit is different in this respect than any other miracle He does, and His explanation of His teaching is different than any other explanation throughout all His recorded ministry. Nowhere else in the gospels does He give such an explanation that is as plain as the teaching and remains just as shocking when explained as it does when taught. This is because the teaching and the explanation *are * one and the same just as the grace and the sacrament *are one *and the same.

 

[PNEUMA]

How do you even know the Bible a correct compilation of divinely inspired books? That all the books in it are indeed the complete and only divinely inspired writings?
Hope the following helps with your theory that objective reasoning is a factor:

How was it determined that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John should be accepted as Divinely inspired? They are differently worded. Only John’s Gospel has the story of the changing water in win. Only John’s Gospel is missing the story of Jesus Temptation in the Wilderness. John’s Gospel gives no account of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, the other three include it.

Only Matthew and Luke have the Sermon on the Mount. In Luke’s version, (Luke 6:17) And he came down with them and stood on a level place (RSV) . In Mathews Gospel (Matthew 5:1) When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain!

Only Mark and Luke have the Ascension story. And these are the universally accepted books.

Luke begins his Gospel “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us.” (Luke 1:1, NAB Who are these many? We know there was a Gospel of Thomas the the Proto-evangelium of James. How was it decided there should be four, not one really truer one? Not 5, not six? We can logically conclude there was “no small debate” about this.

The Bishop of Lyons, Irenæus (died 202) is the only explicit account of why there are four Gospel. He not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, but argues that they must be just four, no more and no less.

He says: “It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. ***For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord” ***(Adv. Hær., III, xi, 8).

How logical is that? Yet we accept the Tradition!

Peace to all who spend many hours researching and posting.

Which gospel would you include/exclude ?

 

[JReducation]

JR, please know that others here, such as I, have done graduate work in catechetics.

This is not in dispute. I mentioned my experience in grad school as an example of how the Church teaches apologetics.

With respect, I find your emphasis misplaced: it is not the Church Herself who runs these forums; the hierarchy does not own Catholic Answers,

This is also true. CAF is a private non profit coroporation, not an official organism of the Catholic Church. If that were the case, it would have pulled the plug on this conversation a long time ago. I know this is tangential, but someone compared CAF to EWTN, because they are both non profit corps. I thought to myself, "The difference is that the Franciscan Order is a Catholic organization and they have the controlling vote on the Board of Directors of EWTN. They would not allow such a debate on the air. It would be ‘This is is what the Church says and here is why it says it.’ "

That being said, you and I are part of the Catholic Church. See if this works, it may or may not. You have a graduate degree in Catechetics and I in theology. Granted, they are two different areas; but they cooperate with each other. I may be a product of my formation, but I firmly believe that when I do theology I must do it as the Church does it, consistent with her methodology and her tradition. If I were to deviate from that methodoloyg and that tradition, I’m still doing theology, but is it Roman Catholic theology or my own?

nor are the many new books pouring out on apologetics being produced by the Vatican. I see the energy for apologetics as generated by laymen; it is our job, and our proper sphere,

The Church has no problem with this and neither do I. Therefore, I’m a little confused by this comment. Nonetheless, keep in mind that many of these lay people are theologians, many with STDs and PhDs. They’re writing from many years of research. There are some out there who are a little nuts, but for the most part, they are legitimate scholars.

and those who offered PC good reasons from scripture to accept transubstantiation are doing good apologetics on this thread.

I am one of those who offered PC good reasons from scripture. I bulleted an entire outline of Johanine Theology and Johanine methodology for him. He completely bypassed it. Several others have done the same and he has bypassed them. He remains fixed on his idea that the entire text in John’s sixth chapter is symbollic speech, even after we demonstrated that John does not use the word symbol, but the word sign and how they are different.

This much information is not ony apologetics, it is also exegesis. If one is getting this much information and continues the discussion from a point that has been legitimately and clearly explained, then one must question whether the person really wants to know the truth or simply drive his perspective.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a very straightfoward description of apologetics, along with its history etc.

"A theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion."

**“It addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information.”

newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

I have no problem offering a scientific explanation for the point in question. I have a problem when the person asks the questions and fails to consider the answers. Then it seems to be a futile activity.

I go back to the way that I was trained, which is to pull back. Because there must be some assent of reason on the part of the person who asks, otherwise there is no dialogue. The tradition of the greatest apologists in the history of the Church has been to engage in answering questions. However, a dogmatic question has only one answer. It’s very much like a math problem. 2 x 2 = 4.

You may be in a better place to take this on than I am, as you are trained in catechetics. Obviously, you’re a religious educaor. I am not. I work with Mystical Theology for those who are already Catholic. In my situation, people ask, I answer and we move on to the next question. Pretty much like a math class. Of course, just like a math class, you often have to explalin your answer, because they are not easy concepts to grasp. But the audience is not challenging what you’re sharing. They simply do not understand and are asking for clarification.

Maybe a Religious Educator is better equipped to respond to PC’s questions that those who deal in theology. I take my hat off to religious educators, becaue they have the stamina and the skills for this kind of discussion.

I mean no disrespect by my answer. I’m very honest when I say, that I feel that PC is picking and choosing what he attends to and what he will consider. When the person does this, then we’re not doing theology. It’s more like “follow the leader”. He leads and we follow.

I have never seen any of our great theologians or Church leaders do this, even with toughest heretics. At some point, the Church just dropped out of the discussion and stood by her position.

This may sound crazy, but it’s a good example. Even with Luther and the European heretics of the 1500s, at some point the Inquisition stopped. They realized that it made no sense to persecute, refute, debate, prosecute or whatever else they tried. Reason stepped in. Thank God.

I’m trying to be reasonable and say, “If and when PC wants to know how John wrote, why he wrote this way and what John meant, I’d be happy to show him.” Then he can take that information and make up his own mind. Until that time comes, it’s not reasonable for me to continue to discuss John’s thesis on the Eucharist and how it points to transubstantiation.**

 

[johnnydigit]

I am one of those who offered PC good reasons from scripture. I bulleted an entire outline of Johanine Theology and Johanine methodology for him. He completely bypassed it. Several others have done the same and he has bypassed them. He remains fixed on his idea that the entire text in John’s sixth chapter is symbollic speech, even after we demonstrated that John does not use the word symbol, but the word sign and how they are different.

This much information is not ony apologetics, it is also exegesis. If one is getting this much information and continues the discussion from a point that has been legitimately and clearly explained, then one must question whether the person really wants to know the truth or simply drive his perspective.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a very straightfoward description of apologetics, along with its history etc.

"A theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion."

"It addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information."

newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

I have no problem offering a scientific explanation for the point in question. I have a problem when the person asks the questions and fails to consider the answers. Then it seems to be a futile activity.

…

But the audience is not challenging what you’re sharing. They simply do not understand and are asking for clarification.

Maybe a Religious Educator is better equipped to respond to PC’s questions that those who deal in theology. I take my hat off to religious educators, becaue they have the stamina and the skills for this kind of discussion.



yep, theology != exegesis != apologetics.

i personally get irritated with apologetics and for me, feel it is just a waste of time beyond a certain point. no one is going to budge and the arguing never ends. i guess i read this forum more to learn than to argue with protestants. i would rather move forward and grow than to stay stagnant in one place. it’s almost as if it’s the plan of the man downstairs to keep people here and frustrated…

 

[utunumsint]

I’m wondering how may out there can truly say that Apologetics was the deciding point when converting to the Catholic Church? Ask a number of converts, and some will say the Church Fathers did it for them, some will say Catholic Mysticism, others Pope John Paul II’s theology, and for others, a kind old and faithful Catholic lady who treated them with deep charity. Where does Apologetics rate on the scale of motivators for each of these people? Who knows. Some accept the Catholic Faith before they ever even know what the word “Apologetics” means. And…some reject the Catholic Faith having heard every single Catholic apologetics argument under the sun. Why is this? The heart has its own reasons as Pascal once said.

I do agree, however, that at a certain point, there is nothing more to be gained by arguing except an increase in animosity.

God bless,
Ut