Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

PR,

That makes sense to me. We do the same.

Rob

You accept Sacred Tradition as the Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have typed out more of it for your information. The book can be purchased cheap and used on the web but be sure to get the new edition. That is the one I have.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren: flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparent at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

Amen! Beautifully articulated and trenchant.

You can decide for yourself what he is teaching. I doubt if he is a heretic.

If he were saying in the above quote that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist, then he indeed would be a heretic.

But, of course, he does not say that at all.

Here also is a quote from Father Raymond E. Brown regarding the physical presence.
I dont think he is a heretic either.

"so far as I can see, the properties of the risen body are an open question; and I would think that holds true even in the teaching of the Catholic church. While I judge that the church has taught infallibly the bodily resurrection, I find no evidence that it has taught specific details about the properties of the risen body of Jesus and its physicality. Therefore I suggest avoiding the term physical and using the term bodily. That latter term is closer, in any case,to the real issue…
Raymond Brown, Q 53, Questions and Answers on the Bible, p 75, Imprimatur.

Amen to this as well!

Note that the pope refers to his bible verses quoted as “eucharistic”

None of these quotes denies the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And I am puzzled by your claim that they do.

And I have heard many Catholics even on this forum say that the eucharist is not a physical presence of Christ. I suspect you have a minority opinion.

Rob

Could you please provide the quotes/posts of these Catholics? Thanks.

 

[stewstew03]

PR,

I have typed out more of it for your information. The book can be purchased cheap and used on the web but be sure to get the new edition. That is the one I have.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren: flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparent at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

You can decide for yourself what he is teaching. I doubt if he is a heretic.

Here also is a quote from Father Raymond E. Brown regarding the physical presence.
I dont think he is a heretic either.

"so far as I can see, the properties of the risen body are an open question; and I would think that holds true even in the teaching of the Catholic church. While I judge that the church has taught infallibly the bodily resurrection, I find no evidence that it has taught specific details about the properties of the risen body of Jesus and its physicality. Therefore I suggest avoiding the term physical and using the term bodily. That latter term is closer, in any case,to the real issue…
Raymond Brown, Q 53, Questions and Answers on the Bible, p 75, Imprimatur.

Note that the pope refers to his bible verses quoted as “eucharistic”

And I have heard many Catholics even on this forum say that the eucharist is not a physical presence of Christ. I suspect you have a minority opinion.

Rob

Rob,

Pope BXVI is addressing the issue of bodily resurrection - it has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He’s contemplating the distinction between our “earthly bodies” and our “heavenly bodies.”

 

[PRmerger]

Rob,

Pope BXVI is addressing the issue of bodily resurrection - it has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He’s contemplating the distinction between our “earthly bodies” and our “heavenly bodies.”

Right.

Especially since the portion of the book is titled “The question of the resurrected body”

The word “eucharistic” is only used in reference to John 6, which describes the sublime Bread of Life discourse.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I, of course, read him as a theologian and It seems to me he argues against your interpretation of a physical presence

Of course he does not argue against the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the** Eucharist**: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us.–Pope B16

 

[PRmerger]

Of course he does not argue against the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the** Eucharist**: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us.–Pope B16

And here we see his reiteration of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

the word of God** takes flesh **sacramentally in the event of the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course he does not argue against the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the** Eucharist**: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us.–Pope B16

And also here we see the confirmation of our Holy Father’s belief in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

With these words, spoken immediately after the words of consecration, the priest proclaims the mystery being celebrated and expresses his wonder before **the substantial change of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, **a reality which surpasses all human understanding.

 

[submariner2]

I’m not quite clear on what he means by “magisterial statments”. Could you define what you mean by them?

And, it would appear that the word “changeable” is an adjective for conceptions of an epoch. Not for the doctrinal beliefs themselves. But I can’t tell with absolute certainty based on this particular passage.

PR,

I imagine that “magisterial statement” means any statment by a magesterium. I cannot think of any other reasonable meaning.

I would also say that “changeable” means it can be changed.

Thats my opinion until I see some offical statement (that word again) that requires another view.

I certainly would not second guess Father Brown since he was an expert on these matters. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Rob,

Pope BXVI is addressing the issue of bodily resurrection - it has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He’s contemplating the distinction between our “earthly bodies” and our “heavenly bodies.”

stew,

He refers to those scripture verses as “eucharistic” verses.

How many different “bodies” are we talking about? My church teaches that the presence of Christ in the eucharist is the same presence that lives in our heart which is the spiritual body of Christ as explained by the pope. . In fact our catholic church is defined in scripture as the body of Christ.

This is the kind of thing that one should utilize scripture interpreting scripture to seek the meaning intended by the apostle at the time he wrote the verse.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I imagine that “magisterial statement” means any statment by a magesterium. I cannot think of any other reasonable meaning.

Well, we can’t go on imagination to answer your question appropriately… For Catholics,the “magesterium” is the teaching authority of the Church. There are many levels of it, starting at the top with the Ex Cathedra statement, all the way down to the parish priest.

There is a US conference of Bishops that makes magesterial statements about US Catholics. These aurhoritative statements do not apply to Catholics in other countries, because they have no jurisdiction there. Does that help you understand why we are confused?

The Vatican can promulgate instructions on disciplines and practices for the whole world, but these are also subject to change, because they are not in the category of doctrine.

I would also say that “changeable” means it can be changed.

Discplines and practices are subject to change, but the Magesterium is bound by the doctrine of the faith that was handed down from the Apostles. None of that can be changed -added to, or subtracted from. This is why , when the Reformers began adding and subtracting with the Deposit of Faith, their products had to be rejected by Catholics as constituting “a different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles.

Thats my opinion until I see some offical statement (that word again) that requires another view.

Rob

The Catechism is considered an official “statement” on the faith, even though it is not considered an infallible document.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I imagine that “magisterial statement” means any statment by a magesterium. I cannot think of any other reasonable meaning.

Ah but thats what you imagine, thus an opinion.

I would also say that “changeable” means it can be changed.

You think?

Thats my opinion

Opinion being the key word of couse:thumbsup:

I certainly would not second guess Father

Course not however he is not speaking for the Pope and Magesterium. Thus he is speaking on a personal level in regards to his “opinion”.

Different story with the Ecumuenical Coucils and History.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt&sa=U&ei=rhTOT_PBIY6e8gSP-riLCw&ved=0CBMQFjAB&sig2=jXt83s-CZjVQYnTI3pa7NQ&usg=AFQjCNHiuerB12wulwbBc3-ACc_y35wlDA

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm&sa=U&ei=2xbOT8KAA4mc8QSDr9TiCg&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=AnoBoPrbirzPnGJggcDf_A&usg=AFQjCNFyDh5TyCZEb8AZBzomNqr4DYOBfw

google.com/url?q=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html&sa=U&ei=2xbOT8KAA4mc8QSDr9TiCg&ved=0CBgQFjAB&sig2=bLc-3uSrMl9pw_6VPSnwkg&usg=AFQjCNGh6w7Zpq-y9E2mXcdd3a3Pmg1Y-w

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION

1. “To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place” Pope Paul VI:shrug:

Peace

 

[submariner2]

You accept Sacred Tradition as the Word of God?

PR,

I accept what I think is the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition which is scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives. I got this off the web. Catholics seem to have a lot of opinions about it but rarely have anything definitive to show other than what I have found
from Vatican II.

My church calls it the Word of God in scripture, the Word of God in us, and the Word of God among us.

Very similar.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

And also here we see the confirmation of our Holy Father’s belief in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

With these words, spoken immediately after the words of consecration, the priest proclaims the mystery being celebrated and expresses his wonder before **the substantial change of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, **a reality which surpasses all human understanding.

PR,

Again the adjective “substantial” which does not have to mean physical. I hope I have made a “substantial” argument on this.
Rob

 

[GKC]

PR,

Again the adjective “substantial” which does not have to mean physical. I hope I have made a “substantial” argument on this.
Rob

Within the context of Trent, and transubstantiation, the words of Inigo Montoya, paraphrased slightly, are apt. That word does not mean what you think it means.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Within the context of Trent, and transubstantiation, the words of Inigo Montoya, paraphrased slightly, are apt. That word does not mean what you think it means.

GKC

You killed my father, now prepare to die.

Iñigo

 

[stewstew03]

stew,

He refers to those scripture verses as “eucharistic” verses.

How many different “bodies” are we talking about? My church teaches that the presence of Christ in the eucharist is the same presence that lives in our heart which is the spiritual body of Christ as explained by the pope. . In fact our catholic church is defined in scripture as the body of Christ.

This is the kind of thing that one should utilize scripture interpreting scripture to seek the meaning intended by the apostle at the time he wrote the verse.

Rob

Rob,

I’m not sure if you’re spending too much time on another website (CARM?) but I don’t think you’re grasping the meaning of Ratzinger’s point. He is explaining the idea, from his perspective, of the resurrected body. In his view, 1 Cor 15:50 is to be understood in the same way as John 6:63. Here are the verses:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 15:50[/BIBLEDRB]

What is Paul saying in verse 50? In a nutshell, our biological structure cannot enter Heaven (from Ratzinger’s perspective).

and

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:63[/BIBLEDRB]

What’s going on here? Jesus is saying, “If you cannot believe that I can give you my flesh to eat, now that I am living amongst you, how will you believe, that, after my ascension, I can give you to eat my glorified and immortal flesh, seated on the right hand of the majesty of God?” see Haydock Commentary].

In verses 62 and 63, he describes that when He rises, His whole body will be taken up in Heaven - thus, they won’t be cannibals eating His dead remains. [If anything, this supports the idea of transubstantiation; one thing is clear, it does not refute the idea].

Keep in mind, this is all in relation to the resurrected body - what happens when we pass, will we receive glorified bodies, etc. As Paul says, “the perishable cannot become imperishable.” Ratzinger argues that both John and Paul indicate the resurrection of our bodies does not mean our physical bodies - but a resurrection of the person in a glorified body.

Does this make sense?

NB: For my Catholic brethren, here is a link to the full passage from Ratzinger’s book.

 

[guanophore]

He refers to those scripture verses as “eucharistic” verses.

Yes, but Eucharist as the Apostles taught it is different from how you think of it today.

How many different “bodies” are we talking about? My church teaches that the presence of Christ in the eucharist is the same presence that lives in our heart which is the spiritual body of Christ as explained by the pope. . In fact our catholic church is defined in scripture as the body of Christ.

Yes, and Catholics believe this too, but more. What we received from the Apostles is that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a real physical way that extends beyond Jesus who is alive in our hearts, and the Spirit of Jesus that unites us in One Body of faith. We believe that, when He held the elements in His hands and said “This is my Body” that He meant exactly what He said.

This is the kind of thing that one should utilize scripture interpreting scripture to seek the meaning intended by the apostle at the time he wrote the verse.

Rob

Yes, which is one reason it comes up on a thread like this. It is correct to understand what is written in the light of everything else that is written, but one can do that, and still fall short. In fact, if we do not also look at what is written in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught (Sacred Tradition) then we can stil miss the mark. What the Apostles’ taught is that Jesus meant exactly what He said. It IS.

Granted, it is a mystery far beyond our human comprehension, how He can do this, but we believe He is all mighty, and can do whatever He wants. If He wants to come to us under the signs of bread and wine, He is able.

 

[GKC]

Iñigo

Yes, I know.

But consistently, in the book, Inigo.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I know.

But consistently, in the book, Inigo.

GKC

Haha, sorry I couldn’t help it. My Great-Grandmother on my Mom’s side was Iñigo (Last name not first).

 

[submariner2]

Rob,

I’m not sure if you’re spending too much time on another website (CARM?) but I don’t think you’re grasping the meaning of Ratzinger’s point. He is explaining the idea, from his perspective, of the resurrected body. In his view, 1 Cor 15:50 is to be understood in the same way as John 6:63. Here are the verses:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 15:50[/BIBLEDRB]

What is Paul saying in verse 50? In a nutshell, our biological structure cannot enter Heaven (from Ratzinger’s perspective).

and

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:63[/BIBLEDRB]

What’s going on here? Jesus is saying, “If you cannot believe that I can give you my flesh to eat, now that I am living amongst you, how will you believe, that, after my ascension, I can give you to eat my glorified and immortal flesh, seated on the right hand of the majesty of God?” see Haydock Commentary].

In verses 62 and 63, he describes that when He rises, His whole body will be taken up in Heaven - thus, they won’t be cannibals eating His dead remains. [If anything, this supports the idea of transubstantiation; one thing is clear, it does not refute the idea].

Keep in mind, this is all in relation to the resurrected body - what happens when we pass, will we receive glorified bodies, etc. As Paul says, “the perishable cannot become imperishable.” Ratzinger argues that both John and Paul indicate the resurrection of our bodies does not mean our physical bodies - but a resurrection of the person in a glorified body.

Does this make sense?

NB: For my Catholic brethren, here is a link to the full passage from Ratzinger’s book.

Stew,

Dont see that you have changed what he said. Physical body - no. Spritual body - yes.

He also said those were “eucharistic” verses which implies they pertain to the euchairst.

I agree if he is saying that. If he is saying something else that is too hard to understand that is another story.

Rob