Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[Non_Serviam]

Hi all,

I’ve read the thread with interest, being convinced of the Real Presence, but not transubstantiation, and for the most part the arguments seem to be able to go either way, neither side convincing me fully.

There is one argument that bothers me, and I’d like to hear the poster’s rationale for it:

I believe that we’re at the end of a corridor as far as this detail is concerned, Catholic Author. As I have often said, theology is like math. It reaches a point where 2 + 2 = 4. You can’t say anything else, because there is nothing else to be said. So it is with the case of John’s language and the use of such terms as sign and Logos.

They are what they are. John uses the word sign, in Greek. Given the fact that this was both a very intelligent man and a mystic, it would be foolish to assume that he did not know what the word sign meant in Greek philosophy and theology.

He also wrote a very elaborate prologue to his Gospel equating Jesus with the Logos of Greek philosophy; in effect saying that Jesus is the eternal Logos of whom the Greeks spoke.

Now I read in the Gospels that John was a fisherman, not a philosopher or theologian. Now his profession doesn’t preclude him from being intelligent or a mystic, but it does make it likely that he had little to no time to study the niceties of Greek philosophy before meeting Jesus. So how to explain JReduction’s hypothesis that Greek philosophy is being used in the logos passages of John?

1. 
   *]Perhaps some of John’s disciples who had studied Greek philosophy put the Gospel together instead of John himself (the “Johannine community” solution)
   *]John may have chosen to study Greek philosophy during his apostolate to be a more effective evangelist
   *]there may be a misunderstanding in the Gospels about John’s background
   *]God used a dictational method of inspiration for John’s Gospel so that John wrote using philosophical concepts he didn’t understand
   *]lastly it may be that the logos passage isn’t referring to Greek philosophical concepts
   
   The last theory seems the most likely to me, given that there are frequent references to the “Word” in the Hebrew Scriptures ( Ps 33:6; 105:19; 107:20 Gen 15:1) and that the Apostles would have been familiar with the use of the word logos in the OT from their use of the Septuagint (ably proved on CAF any number of times by Catholic posters).
   
   In short, my question to JReduction is How do you prove John was referencing Greek concepts in his Gospel rather than Hebrew ones?
   
   And if the references are to Hebrew thought, doesn’t that nullify your whole argument? (One might be able to make a similar argument from Hebrew premises, but the legwork would have to be done over)
   
   Thanks.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Pardon me for jumping in, but no one has mentioned Malachi 1:11. “From east to west a Perfect Offering is made”. This is something all Catholics have heard every time we go to mass.

Catholics seem to be the only ones doing the will of God by offering Jesus the only pure offering to God. I do not think that to offer a waffer that is thought of as just a symbol would be a pure offering. “That” symbolic waffer would not be Jesus so it would not fulfill this prophecy.

Pat

Thanks Pat. Actually I took an OT exposition that started as far back as Cain And Able with the concept of “an acceptable sacrifice” (Abel’s) and an “unacceptable sacrifice” (Cain’s) among two brother’s who believed in God being seperated by God. I then introduced the notion of Melchezidec of the highest priestly order prefiguring Jesus as High Priest and making the direct comparison to the perfect offering made 24/7 from east to west by Catholic Priests who are of the same Melchizedek order and tradition. I did not explicitly quote Malachi but spoke of it.

There is so much prefiguring in OT over and over again (e.g. manna from heaven, delivery from Egypt [enemy/sin], Abraham and Issaic sacrifice, covenant sacrifice, scape goats, sacrificial lamb, priestly orders, etc. etc. etc.) that is becomes so blatantly easy to see God developing His Salvation plan through replacing Adam and Eve with Jesus and Mary as new prototypes for humanity and the new fruit of the tree of life (Eucharist) to replace the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil to bring salvific grace to a fallen humanity. I mentioned to PC that in light of all this linkage in OT to NT and back and forth and the very evolution of the new covenant symbolic of a newly created partnership with God through the sharing of divinity (at the Lord’s Banquet Table) that is becomes almost impossible to not accept the Eucharist as real presence of Jesus’ Divinity (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity).

Everything in OT and NT scripture is leading up to delivery from our enslavement to sin to restoring our fallen nature with a divine infusion of grace through the Eucharist to delivery to The Promised Land (Heaven). It is SCREAMING “Taste and See That the Lord is Good!”.

My God - to be so close to the truth and not wanting to see it or not being able to see it makes me want to cry!

James

 

[utunumsint]

Now I read in the Gospels that John was a fisherman, not a philosopher or theologian. Now his profession doesn’t preclude him from being intelligent or a mystic, but it does make it likely that he had little to no time to study the niceties of Greek philosophy before meeting Jesus. \QUOTE]

I’ve heard that John may have been part of the household of the high priest, perhaps a relative based on his easy access to the Caiaphas’ house during Jesus’ trial. I’m not sure how accepted this theory is.

Still, John is said to have lived in Ephesus in later days. He may have imported Greek concepts to explain Jesus’ words, or to better evangelize the Greek population who may not have been primarily Jewish.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Catholic_Author]

That the perfect offering that is given night and day is the Eucharist does not seem to be objectionable to anyone so far. Let’s take a look at Exodus 16:8

*When the LORD gives you flesh to eat in the evening," continued Moses, “and in the morning your fill of bread, as he heeds the grumbling you utter against him, what then are we? Your grumbling is not against us, but against the LORD.” *

We can clearly see the night and day motif in this passage as well.

The food that the LORD gave in Moses day was flesh and bread. In order for the food that Jesus gives in our day to be greater than the food He gave in Moses day, it must be everything that it was in Moses day plus more. Since it was both bread and flesh in the desert it must be in some way both bread and flesh today. Because the senses perceive the bread we can see how that part is fulfilled. The only place the flesh can be, since it cannot be sensed because the bread is sensed, is in everything other than what is able to be sensed. Therefore the flesh is in the substance but not in the appearance.

 

[toaslan]

"Toaslan:

this doesn’t even meet, let alone overcome, JR’s presentation.

Actually, it addresses it head on

I meant, that to assert the contrary is not proportionate to what was proposed. Because you don’t dispose of a proposition by merely asserting the opposite, unless you’re on the playground…
Catholic Author:

…There are only a handful of possibilities.

1. Logos and Sign are both literal
2. Logos is literal but Sign is symbolic
3. Logos is symbolic but Sign is literal
   4 Logos and Sign are both symbolic

I think we all agree that 2 & 3 are ruled out because of inconsistencies. That only leaves 1 & 4. The Catholic position is 1 and PCM’s would appear to be 4.

Yes, see, if PC holds that Logos is symbolic, he must dispose of the reasons JR points out to the contrary:
JR:

Is Jesus really the Logos? Logos was also a Greek concept that John applied to Jesus. But we cannot see pre-existence in Jesus. Nor can we see him as the same Word that God used to created the universe. How do we know that Jesus is truly the Word (Logos)? Is that symbollic too? Then the world was not created through Jesus and Jesus was not with God from the beginning. Or God did not create through his Word. Maybe Genesis is wrong and God is not the divine creator or as the Greek’s called it, the Logos.

and:
JR:

John is bold enough to state in his prologue that Jesus is the Word, that he was with God and that he was God before the creation of time.

I know that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox accept this as literal truth…

…Jesus is the maning of life that is actually alive itself, that he was present before life existed, and that the meaning of life took on flesh…

Jesus never told John that he was the Logos. John does not say this. John states it as a fact…revealed to him.

and:
JR:

9John) wrote a very elaborate prologue to his Gospel equating Jesus with the Logos of Greek philosophy; in effect saying that Jesus is the eternal Logos of whom the Greeks spoke. If we take this literally, John is saying that Jesus existed before time, which means that he is divine. Given this assertion in the prologue one can safely believe John when he writes in chapter 6 that Jesus will give a sign of his divinity, his body and blood as bread and wine.

If we attempt to say that John is using all of these Greek words figuratively, here is how it would play itself out. Let’s assume that John does not mean for us to believe that Jesus is literally the Logos. Therefore, Jesus is not literally pre-existent, nor is he the word of God. He symbolizes the Word of God. He symbolizes the meaning of life, instead of BEING the meaning of life.

In which case, if Jesus symbolizes the meaning of life, this leaves a void in cosmology. Who then is the meaning of life? Is there such a thing as the meaning of life? Is there truly a Messiah? Were the Jews correct in asking that Jesus be put to death, because he presented himself as the symbol of the divine, which in Jewish law is a heretical act …

Just for a moment, let’s assume that John’s prologue is symbollic. Jesus is not the eternal Word of the Father. He came into existence at his conception, like all mortals. Therefore, it is logical that he had no divine nature. If he had no divine nature, then it stands to reason that he speaks of his flesh and blood in symbollic terms, that being bread and wine. Then we can safely conclude that the resurrection event was a spiritual experience that the apostles had, where they saw Jesus, not the physical Jesus, but a spectre of Jesus that God allowed them to see.

There is a third possibility here. Let’s assume that the prologue is to be taken literally. Jesus is the eternal Word of the Father. He is pre-existent. He takes human nature at the moment of conception. … But the only evidence that we have of his eternal divine nature is John’s testimony in the Prologue. How do we know that John is right? Afterall, he is using pagan philosophy to drive home his point. In fact, he’s using the same pagan philosophy that he uses in Chapter 6. Once again, John relies on such ancient Greek terms as logos and sign. The question is why should we take logos literally and sign symbollically? They both come from the same gospel writer, the same language, and the same school of metaphysics.

So now we have John in the prologue telling us that the Sign or proof that Jesus is the God-Man is the incarnation of the pre-existent Word of God in Jesus Christ and that we have to accept this like a math problem. But in Chapter 6 Jesus promises another sign, his body and blood as food and drink, but this time, John wants us to ignore the whole Greek thing and interpret sign as symbol.

The ball is now in PC’s court.

Why is the Logos pre-existent and incarnate in Jesus Christ? How do we prove this is physically true or possible? Was John speaking symbollically?

So, if PC wants to responsibly maintain that Logos is symbolic, he has the many issues raised above to conquer. (JR, I carved up your posts a bit, sorry.)

 

[CentralFLJames]

What is absolutely ironic to me and makes me want to SCREAM is how no one can see the supreme irony in how man was told By God not to eat of the forbidden fruit in the garden but did so anyway when Satan told him that God was lying and it was good for him. Now we have God giving us the Eucharist (the fruit of the Tree of Life) that has promises of restoring us to eternal life and God’s saving grace. God is telling us through Jesus “Eat My Body and you shall have eternal life again”. But now we have those that suddenly have no appetite to eat and want to believe God is lying again!!! Hello!!! Are we insane to not trust God this time or what? All we have to do is get in a state of grace, eat the bread of life and LIVE! It’s that simple - trust in God and be obedient and faithful!

God I am praying hard for PC.

James

 

[Catholic_Author]

I meant, that to assert the contrary is not proportionate to what was proposed. Because you don’t dispose of a proposition by merely asserting the opposite, unless you’re on the playground…

Agreed. Yes, I see now what you meant, in fact, it has been one of my issues with PCM as you are no doubt familiar

 

[toaslan]

What …makes me want to SCREAM

James, I got through your entire post #301 and it was good, in my humble opinion. Do me a favor? Please stop screaming. The thread is going fine as long as we all stay on an even keel, OK friend? We really need to stick to the OP, the OP, the OP, otherwise we’ll get all messed up…

 

[Catholic_Author]

That the perfect offering that is given night and day is the Eucharist does not seem to be objectionable to anyone so far. Let’s take a look at Exodus 16:8

*When the LORD gives you flesh to eat in the evening," continued Moses, “and in the morning your fill of bread, as he heeds the grumbling you utter against him, what then are we? Your grumbling is not against us, but against the LORD.” *

We can clearly see the night and day motif in this passage as well.

The food that the LORD gave in Moses day was flesh and bread. In order for the food that Jesus gives in our day to be greater than the food He gave in Moses day, it must be everything that it was in Moses day plus more. Since it was both bread and flesh in the desert it must be in some way both bread and flesh today. Because the senses perceive the bread we can see how that part is fulfilled. The only place the flesh can be, since it cannot be sensed because the bread is sensed, is in everything other than what is able to be sensed. Therefore the flesh is in the substance but not in the appearance.

I want to be very clear about this… when I say the food Jesus gives must in some way be both bread and flesh I am not saying consubstantiation. There is only one accident (appearance) and one substance. The accidents are beloning to what was bread and the substance is beloning to what is flesh (or Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity).

 

[toaslan]

Exodus 16:8

*When the LORD gives you flesh *to eat in the evening," continued Moses, “and in the morning your fill of bread, as he heeds the grumbling you utter against him, what then are we? Your grumbling is not against us, but against the LORD.”

We can clearly see the night and day motif in this passage as well.

The food that the LORD gave in Moses day was flesh and bread. In order for the food that Jesus gives in our day to be greater than the food He gave in Moses day,

and Jesus says it is greater, in the Discourse,

it must be everything that it was in Moses day plus more. Since it was both bread and flesh in the desert it must be in some way both bread and flesh today.

And that way must be a greater way, an even more real way, than the way of the manna being real bread.
Catholic Author:

Because the senses perceive the bread we can see how that part is fulfilled.

that is, we can see that it is bread as the manna was bread?

The only place the flesh can be, since it cannot be sensed because the bread is sensed,

do you mean, “since the flesh cannot be sensed as the bread is sensed?”

(the only place the flesh can be) is in everything other than what is able to be sensed. Therefore the flesh is in the substance but not in the appearance.

Hope I didn’t mess your post up, Catholic Author.

 

[Pat_53]

CentralFLJames can you speak more on the thought you gave in post #305 or can you point me in the direction. Need to keep it simple for us simple minded people.

 

[sambos671]

I’ve no philosophy background but am I understanding the discussion properly that someone is trying to prove transubstantiation using Plato methods of argument? I understand the Logos as Christians understood it and the Dimurge that Plato (two different things) suggested but have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to the Sign.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, I got through your entire post #301 and it was good, in my humble opinion. Do me a favor? Please stop screaming. The thread is going fine as long as we all stay on an even keel, OK friend? We really need to stick to the OP, the OP, the OP, otherwise we’ll get all messed up…

Sure toaslan - but I rarely scream and do so only when I know I am right and want to get somone to understand a thing vital to their well being. Personally I am more focused on the truth of a message than I am on winning a debate or in the orthodoxy of the mechanisms of debate. I am like JR and think we should not debate at all in matters of faith to preserve the dignity of mother Church. We should state our truth and let those that want to quarrel do so with their own consciences.

But I am also a believer in a natural stress-adaptation mechanism as being the way the human body and mind grows - it often takes a loving pain to grow (but I didn’t invent the principal - those who object should take it up with God). In this sense I see that at some point stating a truth with conviction becomes either a means to seperate company from those who distract from it or it becomes a matter of making it stick with those who privately hear but feign that they don’t. So sometimes emotion is necessary to overcome obstinacy or cool academic detachment from the eternal importance underlying the sterile objectivity in the methods and thing spoken of. I try to show restraint but my sincerity is genuine. Your point is taken and I take it in consideration.

That said I want to share something to the thread here. I ran into a bit of writing from Augustine that might prove useful to those who think they can arrive at an understanding of scripture only through a sterile disciplined objective methodology. It does make perfect sense to me both intellectually and spiritually that when speaking of spiritual things (e.g. as we do here in scripture) we should see with 2 kinds of eyes - intellectually objective eyes as well as a eyes that see with the intensity formed through spiritual desire for truth - and not just the fire of one’s own hopes.

To that I give you Augustine. May some profit by his profound council that still resonates with force to this day:
Augustine (AD 397) Book one: Fundamentals of Christian doctrine: things and signs:

ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. CHAP. 37.-DANGERS OF MISTAKEN INTERPRETATION.

For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with **other statements **which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.”(1) Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for **he cannot love **what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love.

And another:
Augustine (AD 397) Book III: Interpretation required by the ambiguity of signs:

Chapter 37.The Seventh Rule of Tichonius.
3056 56. Now all these rules, except the one about the promises and the law, make one meaning to be understood where another is expressed, which is the peculiarity of figurative diction; and this kind of diction, it seems to me, is too widely spread to be comprehended in its full extent by any one. For, wherever one thing is said with the intention that another should be understood we have a figurative expression, even though the name of the trope is not to be found in the art of rhetoric. And when an expression of this sort occurs where it is customary to find it, there is no trouble in understanding it; when it occurs, however, where it is not customary, it costs labor to understand it, from some more, from some less, just as men have got more or less from God of the gifts of intellect, or as they have access to more or fewer external helps. And, as in the case of proper words which I discussed above, and in which things are to be understood just as they are expressed, so in the case of figurative words, in which one thing is expressed and another is to be understood, and which I have just finished speaking of as much as I thought enough, students of these venerable documents ought to be counselled not only to make themselves acquainted with the forms of expression ordinarily used in Scripture, to observe them carefully, and to remember them accurately, but also, what is especially and before all things necessary, to **pray **that they may understand them. For in these very books on the study of which they are intent, they read, “The Lord giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding;”102 and it is from Him they have received their very desire for knowledge, if it is wedded to piety. But about signs, so far as relates to words, I have now said enough. It remains to discuss, in the following book, so far as God has given me light, the means of communicating our thoughts to others.

God Bless,
James

 

[Catholic_Author]

and Jesus says it is greater, in the Discourse,.

Yes, we covered this already. It’s in Jn 6: 27, and 48-51 and 54-58

*“I am the bread of life.
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” ~ 48-51

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. ~ 54-58”
*

I do not think He uses a word we would interpret as “greater” but He explains the concept by comparing the first food that even though it was from the Father did not give life, yet the second food that is also from the Father will give life at the resurrection.

And that way must be a greater way, an even more real way, than the way of the manna being real bread…

Yes, that is the concept that Jesus is conveying by making the comparison between the food that man eats and perishes (the first food) and food that man eats and will be raised because of (the second food).

that is, we can see that it is bread as the manna was bread?.

It is not what I intended but you could say this more accurately: In the same way that the Israelites could sense the properties of Mana as being bread so too can we sense the accidents of the Eucharist as belonging to bread.

When I wrote, "Because the senses perceive the bread we can see how that part is fulfilled.’ I was referring only to the Eucharist. We are capable of perceiving the accidents of the Eucharist as belonging to bread. This is not where most people would object since their senses would seem to tell them that they are experiencing bread. What I am saying is that it is enough that only the accidents remain… only the thngs that can be sensed remain… in order to fulfill this part of the greater than requirement. But this alone would be less than bread since the substance of bread is not there. To see the greater than part we must continue.

do you mean, “since the flesh cannot be sensed as the bread is sensed?” .

Not quite. I am working from a principle of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time. So too no two things can occupy the same exact space at the exact same time. It would certainly take a miracle and one that is not expresses in scripture. For this, what amounts to consubstantiation (both fully bread and body), Jesus would have to have said something like I and the bread are one. But Jesus did not say any such thing. Instead He said, “I am the bread of life.” Therefore the thing which seems bread to us is Jesus. So is not consubstantial. If it is not consubstantial but it must be flesh in order to fulfill the greater than concept, then the substance must be flesh, His Flesh. And where His flesh is, since it is living, so too is the rest of His presence (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity). That’s what makes it greater, the fact that it is Jesus in his fullness. I say again, if the bread part of the second food is fulfilled in the appearances which everyone can see, and the flesh part must be fulfilled, then the flesh part must be fulfilled in the non-visible, non-sense-able (not able to be sensed) part of the Eucharist

When I said “The only place the flesh can be, since it cannot be sensed because the bread is sensed,” I used “be” as “exist”. Does that make sense?

Hope I didn’t mess your post up, Catholic Author.

Not at all.

 

[Catholic_Author]

What else is very interesting of Exodus 16 is that the food God gives is meat at night and bread at morning. Things at night are less visible than at day. This corresponds to the invisible substance of the Eucharist. Whereas things are more visible during the day, this corresponds to the visible accidents of the Eucharist. So by analogy we have visible bread and non-visible flesh. Taking it one step further we get a food that:
1.) appears to be bread and
2.) is flesh that cannot be seen (or is difficult to discern).

This is just an analogy; I’m not sure how it will be valued by those holding a contrary view.

 

[PC_Master]

What is absolutely ironic to me and makes me want to SCREAM…

If you really want to scream, it seems likely that you’re less emotionally detached from this conversation than you might think. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything here, but rather to say that having such anger over things will help neither yourself, nor others in accepting the truth (whether your point of view on it is objectively right or wrong). To quote a bit of scripture – be still and know that he is God. Just calm down a bit, okay?

Now we have God giving us the Eucharist (the fruit of the Tree of Life) that has promises of restoring us to eternal life and God’s saving grace. God is telling us through Jesus “Eat My Body and you shall have eternal life again”. But now we have those that suddenly have no appetite to eat and want to believe God is lying again!!! Hello!!! Are we insane to not trust God this time or what?

You seem to be implying that individuals such as myself are knowingly rejecting God’s will, rather than trying to find it. That seems very unfair of you.

God I am praying hard for PC.

That’s good, and I really hope that you’ll continue, but I think you would also do well to pray for yourself – I say that because if, as you believe you should be doing, you are to share the truth with others, then it is of paramount importance that you understand the truth. Whether or not I am correct if of no importance here – all that matters is that your first and foremost concern should be to know the truth, whatever it may be.

Agreed. Yes, I see now what you meant, in fact, it has been one of my issues with PCM as you are no doubt familiar

I do think I’ve done a bit more than simply assert things to be true.

James, I got through your entire post #301 and it was good, in my humble opinion. Do me a favor? Please stop screaming. The thread is going fine as long as we all stay on an even keel, OK friend? We really need to stick to the OP, the OP, the OP, otherwise we’ll get all messed up…

Thank you! Keeping calm is of great importance in tense discussions like these.

I am glad to tell you that your points were engaging or I would not have written anything here.

Thanks! I feel the same about many of the points presented by many in this thread.

Some of our separated brethren have basic misconceptions…but PCM seems to be a horse of a different color. He seems to understand the line of reasoning offered by the church to support transubstantiation but just refuses to accept it.

Correct…or at least I think I understand the Roman Catholic perspective on this.

It’s like the one post, many posts ago, in which PCM was asked, “What would Jesus have to say for you to accept that he was speaking about really consuming his flesh and blood?”

Something – anything – explicitly stating that the appearance of bread remains while the substance changes. That would certainly convince me. Something less than that – maybe, but I’m not sure exactly what that something might be.

He’s staying and continuing to try to convince Jesus he was only speaking figuratively.

I must say I really am offended at this. This is precisely the kind of uncharitable behavior I was speaking of. Please do not accuse me of motives that I do not have, especially when I’ve done everything I can to convince you guys otherwise…everything except agree with everything you’re saying. Is that what it would take for you to believe I have been honest about searching for truth?

Hey, I understand PCM. I have a two week old baby and a two year old toddler eating up all of my time when I’m not working. I barely have the time to type these sentences.

All I’m asking you is to revisite this thread when you do have the time. Since the posters here have me thoroughly convinced in Transubstantiation, I would like to know how your reasoning works to justify the opposite position.

I will do my best. Maybe in a few weeks, as I get used to the new job plus school, etc. Hit me up about it via PM some time, and remind me, please. I certainly do want to continue this discourse. I just can’t at this very moment.

Heck, it’s been less than a day since my last post, and there’s already a full page of replies.

Actually, it addresses it head on and it is consistent with PCM’s point of view, which I will not attempt or presume to argue for him. There are only a handful of possibilities…4 Logos and Sign are both symbolic…The Catholic position is 1 and PCM’s would appear to be 4.

Sort of. If by symbolic, you mean not literal, physical things, then yes. But it’s kind of complex.

 

[Good_Fella]

For those who require that a miracle must show visible physical effects, please take the time to examine this site:

www.therealpresence.org/eucharist/mir/a3.html - 34k

And kindly note that it is not my intention to start a debate on Eucharistic miracles.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Tim_in_MI]

For those who require that a miracle must show visible physical effects, please take the time to examine this site:

www.therealpresence.org/eucharist/mir/a3.html - 34k

And kindly note that it is not my intention to start a debate on Eucharistic miracles.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Good Fella: First we have to fix the link!

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

There’s no “i” in their “Eucharist”… for some reason…

 

[CentralFLJames]

If you really want to scream, it seems likely that you’re less emotionally detached from this conversation than you might think. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything here, but rather to say that having such anger over things will help neither yourself, nor others in accepting the truth (whether your point of view on it is objectively right or wrong). To quote a bit of scripture – be still and know that he is God. Just calm down a bit, okay?

You seem to be implying that individuals such as myself are knowingly rejecting God’s will, rather than trying to find it. That seems very unfair of you.

The “scream” was of course a purely a rhetorical articulation and not at all of the “angry” variety. If it matters to differentiate be assured that it was rather of the “disappointment” variety in seeing you walk away from a truth; a truth that has been laid out all around you and is so close to you that you should have tripped over it any way you walked. So think of that articulation as more an external expression of empathy and personal concern for your eternal welfare than anything else.

Truths are normally self evident and don’t need proofs. Certainly one of this subject importance and magnitude might should be. Perhaps God still wants us to hold to a certain level of faith in this matter for His own reasons. Something to consider is the possibility that not all things are provable since we can not even know ourselves as God is alleged to know us. How so then can we know God as He knows Himself? Few would disagree that it is impossible for a created being to fully know the Divine being. What makes us believe we can know anything He does not want to reveal except through the avenues He chooses to reveal Himself. Faith is not reachable through reason except through probable hope and God does not seem to apply revelation uniformly among all souls. My thesis for why is that He rewards progressively with degree of trust and spiritual maturity.

But in this topic area the many offered proofs have been made to well within the epsilon of “reasonable doubt” and human error. Yet you choose in a peculiar way to find companionship with the doubt of epsilon. It is peculiar in that this particular matter is more sublime than most others yet ultimately depends on a much larger uncertainty of scripture written by fallable men; men who have no external eye witness accounts that the resurrection ever occurred. How do you resolve that apparent dichotomy in the selective application of personal faith in scripture as sacrosanct against the insistence of the standard for infallible proof against the belief in the transubstantiation? You ask for more precision than is available in the source you hold as the only standard of “true”. Given this the implications of unfairness you complain about are not really so unfair or unreasonable are they? The only rational explanation I can credit to you is that you are consciously taking a subjective assumption of denial from an opposing dogma rather than assuming a position of neutrality from a context consistent with faith in scripture, conventional reason and centered on the pursuit of truth. If that’s not the case then I can’t even extend the charitable assumption of a rational process here. Do you apply this same objective standard of proof in forming your apparent personal commitment to the validity of Sola Scriptura and infallibility of scripture? I am just trying to understand why you hold the burden and standard of proof of transubstantiation much higher than you do the validity of scripture itself.

That’s good, and I really hope that you’ll continue, but I think you would also do well to pray for yourself – I say that because if, as you believe you should be doing, you are to share the truth with others, then it is of paramount importance that you understand the truth. Whether or not I am correct if of no importance here – all that matters is that your first and foremost concern should be to know the truth, whatever it may be.

I do think I’ve done a bit more than simply assert things to be true.

Thank you! Keeping calm is of great importance in tense discussions like these.

Contraire! Given the eternal consequences it is of paramount importance to me as a brother in Chris to do everything I can to help a soul come to the truth. Eternity is a long time and a little perspiration now is nothing compared to the consequences of being in the wrong (I don’t think the principal of invincible ignorance will stand up after this much exposure to the subject). I and others here know with certainty that we have the truth (I can feel mine). But I have shared mine quite nearly to the limits of my ability. But there are still avenues that may bring fruit and perhaps a collective synergy can yet be found here on both sides of the isle.

Unfortunately I can’t concede to agree though that you have done ‘a bit more than assert things to be true (or untrue)’. All I have heard is variations on your own uniquely personal criteria for accepting “truth”. So unless your “more” implies keeping everyone occupied in circular arguments through a siege against reasonableness, the actions to date betray an assertion of seeking the truth. No, I can’t agree - sorry. Would you claim in that latter case that threatening to withdraw was perhaps “more” through some unorthodox application of Ockham’s razor; perhaps to get to “more” through the avenue of “less”. .

The prayers will continue for both of us. But it may be approaching the time to bring in an exorcist.

James

 

[Catholic_Author]

Originally Posted by Catholic Author
Agreed. Yes, I see now what you meant, in fact, it has been one of my issues with PCM as you are no doubt familiar

Certainly. I don’t remember using an absolute in this regard.

Sort of. If by symbolic, you mean not literal, physical things, then yes. But it’s kind of complex.

PC, your first post uses the root word “symbol” a total of six times. You have used it in many other replies. It is not for me to define what you mean and no one can follow your meaning unless you are clear. I think everyone who has posted in this thread can handle the complexity of your beliefs since we seem to have understood you thus far. Please be specific. What exactly do you believe about Christ as the bread of life?