J
josephlilac
Guest
Let’s give White credit and say that it was a rushed response. I really expected more from him. I thought that he would address the actual liturgical texts. Oh well
- Status
A
Atreyu
Guest
Curious. If it is White’s intention to show that a belief in the Real Presence does not equate to a belief in transubstantiation, then is he advocating consubstantiation? If he is not, then is there another alternative? If Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine (= Real Presence), then he is either present instead of the substance of the bread and wine (= transubstantiation) or along with the substance of the bread and the wine (= consubstantiation). I can’t think of another alternative.
So is he trying to say that we should be Lutherans? I just don’t see where he’s going with this argument.
J
josephlilac
Guest
In all honesty (I have to go to bed), I would think that White would argue for a spiritual presence in regards to Augustine and say that we are “reading back” into the texts a supposed physical interpretation.
I find it humorous that he mentioned Lutheran prayers. Did the Lutherans not come from Luther who was a former Roman Catholic priest (who taught transubstantiation then)?
What do I know? I haven’t read everything James White has written (I do own a lot of his books though, ones that my Baptist pastor father-in-law gave to me and my wife before she joined the Catholic faith and then married me…thanks James).
I find it humorous that he mentioned Lutheran prayers. Did the Lutherans not come from Luther who was a former Roman Catholic priest (who taught transubstantiation then)?
What do I know? I haven’t read everything James White has written (I do own a lot of his books though, ones that my Baptist pastor father-in-law gave to me and my wife before she joined the Catholic faith and then married me…thanks James).
A
Atreyu
Guest
In what way is a “spiritual presence” equal to a “real presence”? Can anyone explain this to me?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Good replies, White didn’t have much. He may be tired.
Real Presence is not transubstantiation answered here
It is not a far step from this
COUNCIL OF NICAEA (c. 325 A.D.)
“It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do not offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice…” (Canon 18)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.)
"Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED…
"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT…
“For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES.” (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
see also
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335 - 394 A.D.)
(The Great Catechism 37)
(Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ)
(Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
(Priesthood 3:4:177)
(Homilies on Romans 8:8)
(Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)
(Homilies on Matthew 82:4,5)
(Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7])
(Homilies on Hebrews 17, 2[4]; 17, 3[6])
(Homilies on Philippians 3:4)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 333 - 397 A.D.)
(Commentaries on Psalms 38:25)
(The Faith 3:11:87; 4:10;124)
(The Mysteries 9:50, 58)
(The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)
To this
Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2
The Sacrifice of the Mass is Propitiatory Both for the Living and the Dead
“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid [Heb 4:16]. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Where, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.”
And again, for St. Augustine on the Eucharist
See the commentary from Schaff, JND Kelly, and Darwell Stone.
Phil P
Real Presence is not transubstantiation answered here
It is not a far step from this
COUNCIL OF NICAEA (c. 325 A.D.)
“It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do not offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice…” (Canon 18)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.)
"Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED…
"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT…
“For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES.” (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
see also
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335 - 394 A.D.)
(The Great Catechism 37)
(Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ)
(Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
(Priesthood 3:4:177)
(Homilies on Romans 8:8)
(Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)
(Homilies on Matthew 82:4,5)
(Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7])
(Homilies on Hebrews 17, 2[4]; 17, 3[6])
(Homilies on Philippians 3:4)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 333 - 397 A.D.)
(Commentaries on Psalms 38:25)
(The Faith 3:11:87; 4:10;124)
(The Mysteries 9:50, 58)
(The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)
To this
Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2
The Sacrifice of the Mass is Propitiatory Both for the Living and the Dead
“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid [Heb 4:16]. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Where, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.”
And again, for St. Augustine on the Eucharist
See the commentary from Schaff, JND Kelly, and Darwell Stone.
Phil P
N
nasb
Guest
Received: 21 Sep 2006 15:24:14
From: “Rich Pierce” of AOMIN.org
To: PhilVaz
“He [James White] would like to extend to you a challenge to back up your current brave words by coming on a special two hour edition of the Dividing Line to debate him on the doctrine of purgatory and the Bible. You would be given full rights to distribute the audio of the debate, and, of course, equal time would be provided. But there will be cross-examination as well, so we will see if you are as convinced of the answers you post on your website as you claim. Will you do this in December, January, or February?”
Come on Phil. Take Dr. White’s challenge. You give us all these resources to back up your claims, so let’s see if you can back them up in a debate against Dr. White. You appear to have plenty of time to be able to prepare for a radio debate, since you are always finding time to post here. Here’s your big chance to prove yourself to the Catholic apologetic world. I would love to hear you debate Dr. White, as well as I’m sure a whole bunch of people would. Many people here at the Catholic Answers forum are always wanting to challenge Dr. White. You have dealt with him the most over the years, so I believe Dr. White is giving you this opportunity, since you post here so often. Don’t disappoint your fellow Catholic apologist. Hope you’re up to the task.
From: “Rich Pierce” of AOMIN.org
To: PhilVaz
“He [James White] would like to extend to you a challenge to back up your current brave words by coming on a special two hour edition of the Dividing Line to debate him on the doctrine of purgatory and the Bible. You would be given full rights to distribute the audio of the debate, and, of course, equal time would be provided. But there will be cross-examination as well, so we will see if you are as convinced of the answers you post on your website as you claim. Will you do this in December, January, or February?”
Come on Phil. Take Dr. White’s challenge. You give us all these resources to back up your claims, so let’s see if you can back them up in a debate against Dr. White. You appear to have plenty of time to be able to prepare for a radio debate, since you are always finding time to post here. Here’s your big chance to prove yourself to the Catholic apologetic world. I would love to hear you debate Dr. White, as well as I’m sure a whole bunch of people would. Many people here at the Catholic Answers forum are always wanting to challenge Dr. White. You have dealt with him the most over the years, so I believe Dr. White is giving you this opportunity, since you post here so often. Don’t disappoint your fellow Catholic apologist. Hope you’re up to the task.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
nasb << Come on Phil. Take Dr. White’s challenge. You give us all these resources to back up your claims, so let’s see if you can back them up in a debate against Dr. White. >>
Well…it is tempting. But No. I don’t do phone or formal debates. I have no experience doing them. Martignoni is your guy and should be White’s next Catholic opponent.
Plus he wants to debate purgatory from the Bible. That is not a fair debate. The subject of that Miki thread was the Fathers and purgatory.
But if you must know, James White and I already had our friendly face to face debate. This was back in 1995. I call it the “Holiday Inn Express Debate” or “Chat” take your pick.
AOMIN vs. PHILVAZ August 28, 1995 (feast of St. Augustine)
With Cool Edit Pro 2 I was able to crank up the volume. Now it is audible. How’d I do? I was nervous meeting him but it was a thrill. Back then I knew nothing about the Internet. I was on FidoNet doing text debates. We talked a little about Gail Riplinger (KJV only nut), White’s appearance on “Action Sixties” (a program from Clearwater, FL now defunct I think) for his King James Only Controversy book, some sola scriptura stuff, St. Athanasius, William Webster, Joe Gallegos, everything I could think of in 20 minutes.
William Lane Craig I am not.
Phil P
Well…it is tempting. But No. I don’t do phone or formal debates. I have no experience doing them. Martignoni is your guy and should be White’s next Catholic opponent.
Plus he wants to debate purgatory from the Bible. That is not a fair debate. The subject of that Miki thread was the Fathers and purgatory.
But if you must know, James White and I already had our friendly face to face debate. This was back in 1995. I call it the “Holiday Inn Express Debate” or “Chat” take your pick.
AOMIN vs. PHILVAZ August 28, 1995 (feast of St. Augustine)
With Cool Edit Pro 2 I was able to crank up the volume. Now it is audible. How’d I do? I was nervous meeting him but it was a thrill. Back then I knew nothing about the Internet. I was on FidoNet doing text debates. We talked a little about Gail Riplinger (KJV only nut), White’s appearance on “Action Sixties” (a program from Clearwater, FL now defunct I think) for his King James Only Controversy book, some sola scriptura stuff, St. Athanasius, William Webster, Joe Gallegos, everything I could think of in 20 minutes.
William Lane Craig I am not.
Phil P
T
teajay
Guest
Is there something in American culture that gives great weight to oral debates? A lot of countries that ultimately trace their lineage back to England also have an “oral debating tradition”, but I must admit that none seem as strong as that in America.
What do you believe gives them such significance? Most scholarly disputes are ultimately resolved within an academic context, so do oral debates primarily serve as a means to communicate ideas to non-scholars? Or do most people see them as an enjoyable combination of learning and theatre and not take the result too seriously?
What do you believe gives them such significance? Most scholarly disputes are ultimately resolved within an academic context, so do oral debates primarily serve as a means to communicate ideas to non-scholars? Or do most people see them as an enjoyable combination of learning and theatre and not take the result too seriously?
R
rightandreason
Guest
I would like to reply to Dr. White’s remarks on the term Real Presence and Transubstantiation. I don’t think you can make a strong case for the claim that they mean two different things. We can see that when I and the early church use the term, “Real Presence” it is referring to Christ’ real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist. I don’t think you can bring any evidence that anyone in the early church would have thought it to mean anything other than that.
Also James White seems to think he and John Calvin have a hotline back to the early church, and only he and John Calvin know what they all really meant by their writings. He has a hotline back to the early church who put these Divine Liturgies together, and only he can say what they all really mean. I guess Dr. White has a time machine and can travel back to see these distortions of the litrugies and where they were tampered with. Since he has this sagelike wisdom, I can’t, nor can any Catholic for that matter, use any historical evidience anymore from the liturgies or church fathers, because only he has the credentials to determine what is authentic historicly and what is not. Go figure…
Code:
We can se that liturgy has not been corrupted by Rome, since the Eastern Orthodox who for all intensive purposes broke away from Rome in the time frame of 1054 into the 1100s believe the same thing. We know that they still hold the belief that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I guess the interpretation of the liturgy was corrupted before 1054 then. The fact is everyone who can trace their apostolic line back to the apostles, and celebrate the ancient liturgies, (this being the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox), they in fact believe the substance is changed. All the word transubstantiation is, is a fancy word for the meaning of the substance is changed. Try and find anyone in the Eastern Orthotodox Church who doesn't believe this. You cannot. They in fact believe the prayers of the ancient Liturgies meant exactly what we hold them to believe, especially in regard to the Real and substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
M
Mickey
Guest
I prefer written correspondence. Oral debates feed too easily into spritual pride. The winner of the debate is usually the person with more charisma (look at the presidential debates). I’m not looking to see good debators. A good debator does not necessarily equate to “speaking the truth”. When it comes to challenging someone to a debate, all the posturing and tough-talk seems very immature to me.
We are called to be child-like not child-ish.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
RightReason << since the Eastern Orthodox who for all intensive purposes broke away from Rome in the time frame of 1054 into the 1100s believe the same thing. We know that they still hold the belief that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ >>
You got that right. I think the phrase is "for all intents and purposes." But you did well, my son. Grasshoppa.
Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation
More from Darwell Stone, the Anglo-Catholic
Phil P
You got that right. I think the phrase is "for all intents and purposes." But you did well, my son.
Grasshoppa. Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation
More from Darwell Stone, the Anglo-Catholic
Phil P
M
MrS
Guest
good posts… If James White is reading, he just need to be told that the real HOT LINE is the Apostolic Line. Some day he will see that the closest distance between the point of Christ’s ministry, and the Mass today… is that direct line.
.
J
josephlilac
Guest
rightandreason:
“Mr. White, I would like to add that you present yourself as someone who takes great care to represent others and their positions accurately, and address their points with care. This is apparently absent with the fact that you completely dismissed the crux, and shall I dare say, the complete context of my email.
(note: rightandreason is making reference to his initial email here where he specifically states ‘Liturgies’ several times and White simply dismissed this and instead chose to focus on isolated texts of the Church Fathers) This is the reason why I find difficulty with your assertion of reading the Church Fathers within context; for you have not done so with me, and the irony is that I am alive and can point that out to you.” ***(note: this is an extremely relevant point, while isolated quotes from the Fathers are indeed useful, the faith in practice as presented in the Liturgies account for a broader understanding of Catholic doctrine.)
Guardian:
“Now, anyone that has read the Early Church Fathers notices instant misrepresentation. Mr. White cut and pasted Augustine completely out of context. In fact, Mr. White took sentences from Augustine’s ‘Sermon 62 on the New Testament, 5’ and then linked it up to a few sentences from Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of ‘John: Tractate 25:12.’ I don’t know whether to call this extremely poor scholarship or outright hijacking of the Early Fathers.” ***(note: this is a clear example of how the arrogant attitude White displays in his writings, criticisms and generalizations of “Rome” are completely irresponsible when we then consider the source and his own egregious mistakes, to use Miki’s term. This is clearly a misrepresentation, maybe due to a thoughtless mistake, but still a misrepresentation. The double-standard prevails over at White&co. I wouldn’t hold my breath for an acknowledgement that an error was commited.)
“Mr. White, I would like to add that you present yourself as someone who takes great care to represent others and their positions accurately, and address their points with care. This is apparently absent with the fact that you completely dismissed the crux, and shall I dare say, the complete context of my email.
(note: rightandreason is making reference to his initial email here where he specifically states ‘Liturgies’ several times and White simply dismissed this and instead chose to focus on isolated texts of the Church Fathers) This is the reason why I find difficulty with your assertion of reading the Church Fathers within context; for you have not done so with me, and the irony is that I am alive and can point that out to you.” ***(note: this is an extremely relevant point, while isolated quotes from the Fathers are indeed useful, the faith in practice as presented in the Liturgies account for a broader understanding of Catholic doctrine.)
Guardian:
“Now, anyone that has read the Early Church Fathers notices instant misrepresentation. Mr. White cut and pasted Augustine completely out of context. In fact, Mr. White took sentences from Augustine’s ‘Sermon 62 on the New Testament, 5’ and then linked it up to a few sentences from Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of ‘John: Tractate 25:12.’ I don’t know whether to call this extremely poor scholarship or outright hijacking of the Early Fathers.” ***(note: this is a clear example of how the arrogant attitude White displays in his writings, criticisms and generalizations of “Rome” are completely irresponsible when we then consider the source and his own egregious mistakes, to use Miki’s term. This is clearly a misrepresentation, maybe due to a thoughtless mistake, but still a misrepresentation. The double-standard prevails over at White&co. I wouldn’t hold my breath for an acknowledgement that an error was commited.)
J
josephlilac
Guest
From rightandreason’s dialogue:
“Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms, ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolic. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and one speaks of ‘the bread by which he represents (repraesentat) His very body.’ Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’ All that language really sugests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 212)
Now a quote from Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly dealing with the word “figure”:
“Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms, ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolic. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and one speaks of ‘the bread by which he represents (repraesentat) His very body.’ Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’ All that language really sugests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 212)
P
PhilVaz
Guest
joseph << Now a quote from Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly dealing with the word “figure” >>
Absolutely, and what is interesting is the Fathers who were most explicit about the Eucharist/Mass as a “propitiatory sacrifice” (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem) also used the terms symbol, figure, type, etc. For example:
“Let us, then, with full confidence, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood is given to you, so that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, you might become united in body and blood with Him. For thus we become Christ-bearers, His Body and Blood being distributed through our members. And thus it is that we become, according to the blessed Peter, sharers of the divine nature [2 Pet 1:4].” (Catechetical Lectures 22 [Mystagogic 4], 3; also 23 [Mystagogic 5], 20 for the word “antitype”)
Yet St. Cyril of Jerusalem is clear about the Real Presence and the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the Mass (previous quotes in this and other threads).
The Council of Trent uses the term “symbol” for the Eucharist at least three times here:
“…regarding the doctrine, use and worship of the Sacred Eucharist, which our Savior left in His Church as a SYMBOL of that UNITY and CHARITY with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united…”
“…He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt 26:26f], whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me’ [John 6:58], and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a SYMBOL of that one body of which He is the Head [1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23] and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might ‘all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us’ [1 Cor 1:10].”
“The most Holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that IT IS A SYMBOL OF A SACRED THING [REALITY] and a visible form of an invisible grace…”
from the COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session 13, On the Eucharist, Chapters I, II, III
So we should look at the uses of symbol, figure, type more carefully. I tried to do this a little bit in this article:
Analysis of Symbolical and Allegorical Language
Phil P
Absolutely, and what is interesting is the Fathers who were most explicit about the Eucharist/Mass as a “propitiatory sacrifice” (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem) also used the terms symbol, figure, type, etc. For example:
“Let us, then, with full confidence, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood is given to you, so that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, you might become united in body and blood with Him. For thus we become Christ-bearers, His Body and Blood being distributed through our members. And thus it is that we become, according to the blessed Peter, sharers of the divine nature [2 Pet 1:4].” (Catechetical Lectures 22 [Mystagogic 4], 3; also 23 [Mystagogic 5], 20 for the word “antitype”)
Yet St. Cyril of Jerusalem is clear about the Real Presence and the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice of the Mass (previous quotes in this and other threads).
The Council of Trent uses the term “symbol” for the Eucharist at least three times here:
“…regarding the doctrine, use and worship of the Sacred Eucharist, which our Savior left in His Church as a SYMBOL of that UNITY and CHARITY with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united…”
“…He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt 26:26f], whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me’ [John 6:58], and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a SYMBOL of that one body of which He is the Head [1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23] and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might ‘all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us’ [1 Cor 1:10].”
“The most Holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that IT IS A SYMBOL OF A SACRED THING [REALITY] and a visible form of an invisible grace…”
from the COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session 13, On the Eucharist, Chapters I, II, III
So we should look at the uses of symbol, figure, type more carefully. I tried to do this a little bit in this article:
Analysis of Symbolical and Allegorical Language
Phil P
J
josephlilac
Guest
Seriously, who could deny these teachings?
This is why I am of the belief that White&Co. must think that they are some kind of Church Fathers Whisperer…and this enables them to know "unarguably*, as White&Co. puts it, what the true context is.
This is why I am of the belief that White&Co. must think that they are some kind of Church Fathers Whisperer…and this enables them to know "unarguably*, as White&Co. puts it, what the true context is.
P
Pax
Guest
Phil,
Thanks for this last post. It made my day.
Thanks for this last post. It made my day.
N
nasb
Guest
Phil, many of us are disappointed that you are not willing to take Dr. White’s challenge to debate him.
I can just see St. Paul telling the Pharisees, ‘I don’t want to debate you hypocrites here in the Synagogues, let me go home first and let me get my quotes from Moses, Abraham, etc., this debate stuff is only for the intellectuals’. Take a look at St. Paul in the book of Acts. Now that must have been some serious debating going on. Oh well. Thanks anyway, Phil.
I can just see St. Paul telling the Pharisees, ‘I don’t want to debate you hypocrites here in the Synagogues, let me go home first and let me get my quotes from Moses, Abraham, etc., this debate stuff is only for the intellectuals’. Take a look at St. Paul in the book of Acts. Now that must have been some serious debating going on. Oh well. Thanks anyway, Phil.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
nasb << Phil, many of us are disappointed that you are not willing to take Dr. White’s challenge to debate him >>
Why do I need to debate him? Read his blog and articles, read my articles, then decide who has the truth, the facts, the Bible and the Fathers on their side. I take the Jimmy Akin advice here:
“A prospective debater should ask himself whether he should even engage in a formal debate. It isn’t easy. It requires skills and dispositions that are difficult to cultivate. One must have polished speaking skills, a calm and friendly manner, and the ability to think quickly under cross-examination. One must not become timid, over-conciliatory, belligerent, or arrogant with an opponent.”
I admit, I fail. I am no William Lane Craig Jr. I have never called into a radio talk show in my life, not even Catholic Answers Live, but I am a big listener to them and others. What AOMIN wants is a formal debate on their radio program. No thanks. But it is funny since they think I’m “worthy” to dedicate 2 hours to on their program. 
Make it 4 hours and I might consider it. Just kidding.
I might debate AOMIN on OpenGL vs. Direct3D, that’s what I’m qualified for right now. I’ll take the OpenGL affirmative.
Phil P
Why do I need to debate him? Read his blog and articles, read my articles, then decide who has the truth, the facts, the Bible and the Fathers on their side. I take the Jimmy Akin advice here:
“A prospective debater should ask himself whether he should even engage in a formal debate. It isn’t easy. It requires skills and dispositions that are difficult to cultivate. One must have polished speaking skills, a calm and friendly manner, and the ability to think quickly under cross-examination. One must not become timid, over-conciliatory, belligerent, or arrogant with an opponent.”
I admit, I fail. I am no William Lane Craig Jr.
I have never called into a radio talk show in my life, not even Catholic Answers Live, but I am a big listener to them and others. What AOMIN wants is a formal debate on their radio program. No thanks. But it is funny since they think I’m “worthy” to dedicate 2 hours to on their program. Make it 4 hours and I might consider it. Just kidding. I might debate AOMIN on OpenGL vs. Direct3D, that’s what I’m qualified for right now. I’ll take the OpenGL affirmative.
Phil P
M
Machen
Guest
Philvaz -
If you guys don’t have the guts to go on his program and make your case - then stop all this nonsense.
Machen
Because you attack him and talk about him constantly. If you’re so sure of your arguments and believe he is demonstrably false, why not put your money where your mouth is? Here’s your big chance. Your confidence behind your keyboard is being shown to be nothing but a front.
If you guys don’t have the guts to go on his program and make your case - then stop all this nonsense.
Machen
- Status