Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lochias]

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

I don’t see how you can maintain these views in light of how we Catholics treat the Host. We go to Eucharistic Adoration; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? We avoid letting the Host touch the ground; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? There have been verified Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turned to actual flesh of a human heart, and is still preserved thusly today; why would this happen if Christ was only spiritually present?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Right. The Eucharistic verses are a reference to John 6.

However, it is also true that*** every single verse ***in the Bible is eucharistic and refers to the source and summit of our faith, The Eucharist.

 

[stewstew03]

Stew,

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

For the third time, he is discussing the state of our resurrected bodies. Not the Eucharist. When we die, our bodies do not ascend into heaven. When Christ died, He ascended into heaven. If the term “resurrected body” is foreign to you I suggest you start a new thread.

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

Yes, the two verses do refer to the eucharist. But Ratzinger does not point them out to support a view that Christ is not present in the eucharist but to illustrate a point about resurrected bodies. I believe he uses the verses to explain to the reader that believers will (one day) have glorified bodies much like Jesus when he ascended into heaven. I don’t know how much clearer I can be on this.

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

I think you may need to start another thread. Perhaps you can start by addressing the distinction between Christ’s “spiritual presence” and his “physical presence in a glorified body.”

 

[submariner2]

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.

guano,

I entirely get it that this is your interpretation…

Here is the relevant paragraph from the Mesterium Ecclesiae.

“All these things have to be taken into account in order that these pronouncements may be properly interpreted. Finally, even though the truths which the Church intends to teach through her dogmatic formulas are distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch and can be expressed without them, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that these truths may be enunciated by the Sacred Magisterium in terms that bear traces of such conceptions”.

This seems to be saying what may be true in one epoch may not be true in another.
This indicates a real change and not a “fine tuning.” I understand that the fine tuning aspect is covered in another paragraph. This paragraph is in addition to that.

Anyway, the thing is vague it seems to me and may be impossible for reasonable people to determine exactly what it means. I have to trust Father Raymond Browns explanation since he is the expert.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Ah but thats what you imagine, thus an opinion.

Gary,

Have to start somewhere.

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”.

Of course, but he is an expert on the subject. And if the thing is not clear to me I find an expert. Do you have his expertise on these subjects?

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:

I cannot disagree with this. We all accept the principle of change. My church teaches that. Justin Martyr taught that. The real question is in the HOW.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut on this difficult subject.

Rob

 

[Lochias]

I don’t see how you can maintain these views in light of how we Catholics treat the Host. We go to Eucharistic Adoration; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? We avoid letting the Host touch the ground; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? There have been verified Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turned to actual flesh of a human heart, and is still preserved thusly today; why would this happen if Christ was only spiritually present?

Submariner, you haven’t responded to this yet, I see. What say you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Of course, but he is an expert on the subject. And if the thing is not clear to me I find an expert.

,

Rob, Of course everyone respects his teaching, We’re looking at the bigger picture though.

I cannot disagree with this. We all accept the principle of change. My church teaches that. Justin Martyr taught that. The real question is in the HOW.

Pope Paul VI is difficult not to agree with, His teaching clarified a few misconceptions, which is what I showed you with Father Hardin. Yet Justin Martyr the Early Church Fathers, Councils, Saints and the Tradition of the Apostolic Church’s are the teaching we are describing in the Faith.

What I’m not clear on what it is you actually understand happens with Spiritual?

 

[submariner2]

What I’m not clear on what it is you actually understand happens with Spiritual?

Gary,

I go with Pauls explanation in 1 Cor 15:42-51.

It involves spiritual body vs physical body or spritual presence vs physical presence.

I like the way the pope explained it.

Rob

 

[Lochias]

Gary,

I go with Pauls explanation in 1 Cor 15:42-51.

It involves spiritual body vs physical body or spritual presence vs physical presence.

I like the way the pope explained it.

Rob

Hey. Hey, hey, hey.

Hey. Psst. Hey.

***I don’t see how you can maintain these views in light of how we Catholics treat the Host. We go to Eucharistic Adoration; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? We avoid letting the Host touch the ground; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? There have been verified Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turned to actual flesh of a human heart, and is still preserved thusly today; why would this happen if Christ was only spiritually present? ***

Hey. Submariner, hey. Hey. What do you think about this?

 

[PRmerger]

Hiya, Submariner!

Could you please address this? Thanks.

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

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

 

[GKC]

Hiya, Submariner!

Could you please address this? Thanks.

Stepping in where I might not ought to, it is certainly not a simple physical presence, since the accidents are not transformed. It is certainly a substantial physical presence, since the substance is…

GKC

 

[guanophore]

guano,

I entirely get it that this is your interpretation…

Here is the relevant paragraph from the Mesterium Ecclesiae.

“All these things have to be taken into account in order that these pronouncements may be properly interpreted. Finally, even though the truths which the Church intends to teach through her dogmatic formulas are distinct from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch and can be expressed without them, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that these truths may be enunciated by the Sacred Magisterium in terms that bear traces of such conceptions”.

This seems to be saying what may be true in one epoch may not be true in another.
This indicates a real change and not a “fine tuning.” I understand that the fine tuning aspect is covered in another paragraph. This paragraph is in addition to that.

Anyway, the thing is vague it seems to me and may be impossible for reasonable people to determine exactly what it means. I have to trust Father Raymond Browns explanation since he is the expert.

Rob

Your response is very interesting. I think it says the opposite! The Truth is unchangeable, but the human culture, science, language, philosophy, etc changes and how that immutable Truth is expressed may be influenced by these concepetions (humanity).

 

[PRmerger]

Stepping in where I might not ought to, it is certainly not a simple physical presence, since the accidents are not transformed. It is certainly a substantial physical presence, since the substance is…

GKC

Yes. I think where Submariner is getting confused is with the word “physical”. I’d be happy to eliminate that word from our discussion and instead use “truly and substantially present” and “body, blood, soul and divinity”.

If that makes it easier for him to understand what the Church is saying, and that Pope B16 argues for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then I’m good with that!

 

[guanophore]

I cannot disagree with this. We all accept the principle of change. My church teaches that. Justin Martyr taught that. The real question is in the HOW.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut on this difficult subject.

Rob

This is one area where I think the Western Church has done itself a great disservice. In the East, the faithful have been content to accept that the “HOW” is a mystery beyond the boundaries of human conception. Since it has been left a mystery, the great splintering of the faithful that we see in the West has been avoided, because there are not competing notions on the “HOW”.

 

[JonNC]

This is one area where I think the Western Church has done itself a great disservice. In the East, the faithful have been content to accept that the “HOW” is a mystery beyond the boundaries of human conception. Since it has been left a mystery, the great splintering of the faithful that we see in the West has been avoided, because there are not competing notions on the “HOW”.

And I would include in that the term Sacramental Union.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

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

Ah, so if he indeed means “any statement” by the Magisterium, then that, is indeed true that *some *“statements” by the Magisterium are indeed changeable.

But if he means doctrines and dogmas as being changeable, then of course, the answer is NO, doctrines and dogmas do not change. Our understandings of the dogma may have evolved and been “fine-tuned”, but changed? Never.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I accept what I think is the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition which is scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives.

This is not a correct understanding of what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.

It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the Word of God transmitted to us through the Apostles and their successors.

It is not “the presence of Christ in our lives” and I don’t think you can find any knowledgeable Catholic who would give that definition a

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

A little.

Can you offer an official source for this definition of Sacred Tradition that your church uses, Rob? Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

Again the adjective “substantial” which does not have to mean physical.

Ok. I will agree to eliminate the word “physical” from an attachment to the Catholic dogma of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

How does “truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” sound to you?

Are you agreed that this is what the Church teaches, as well as Pope B16, regarding the Eucharist (in addition to a multitude of other understandings–including that Christ is “spiritually” present, of course!)?

 

[JonNC]

Ok. I will agree to eliminate the word “physical” from an attachment to the Catholic dogma of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

How does “truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” sound to you?

Are you agreed that this is what the Church teaches, as well as Pope B16, regarding the Eucharist (in addition to a multitude of other understandings–including that Christ is “spiritually” present, of course!)?

Kind of like this, PR?

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.



Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Kind of like this, PR?

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.



Jon

Yes, indeed, kind of.