Ignatius' statement & Logic

[Truthstalker]

In the OP, it is not an IF THEN statement but a Where there. Nita covered this in her reference to Iowa. You are trying to force Ignatius’ statement into a mold in which it will not fit, because you draw unwarranted conclusions from it.

 

[Romulus]

In the OP, it is not an IF THEN statement but a Where there. Nita covered this in her reference to Iowa. You are trying to force Ignatius’ statement into a mold in which it will not fit, because you draw unwarranted conclusions from it.

Truthstalker, are you saying that the original Ignatius’ statement is not an IF-THEN statement?? Prove to me that it isn’t…by the way, Nita is using it as an IF-THEN statement. Study some logic, here is a good link LOGIC Earlier you made an impossible propostition…“Where He is, it is not necessarily there.” is this not an IF-THEN statement??

Let us share…we are all here to make sense of Ignatius’ statement. I’m not forcing anything…it all starts off with the context of Ignatuis’ IF-THEN statement…then logic gives us another equivalent view. But again, if you believe Ignatius’s statement is not an IF-THEN statement, prove it.

 

[Michael_Howard]

It’s futile to go through this over and over for the fact that any body with a bible can make any point they want, interpet passages any way they want and that goes for the origanal languges as well.

Folks fight and bicker over the origanal Greek or Hebrew, the same words to no avail, anything can be twisted to make one’s point. And that my friends was the problem with the early church and the herisies of the Gnostics, the Arians and others, **proper interpetation needed to be preserved **or it would be lost in a quagmire of self interpetation as we see today.

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker, are you saying that the original Ignatius’ statement is not an IF-THEN statement?? Prove to me that it isn’t…by the way, Nita is using it as an IF-THEN statement. Study some logic, here is a good link LOGIC Earlier you made an impossible propostition…“Where He is, it is not necessarily there.” is this not an IF-THEN statement??

Let us share…we are all here to make sense of Ignatius’ statement. I’m not forcing anything…it all starts off with the context of Ignatuis’ IF-THEN statement…then logic gives us another equivalent view. But again, if you believe Ignatius’s statement is not an IF-THEN statement, prove it.

An if-then statement requires a connection that is always the case. A where-there statement doesn’t.

If A then B. versus Where A is B is.

“If I stub my toe then I feel pain” is not the same as “where toes are there is pain”.

You attempt to make these identical. You attempt to make a where-there statement an if-then. They are different kinds of statements.

Do you see the difference? Not in this case particularly but in general?

Where Des Moines is there is Iowa is also not the same as
Where Iowa is there is Des Moines.

 

[Romulus]

It’s futile to go through this over and over for the fact that any body with a bible can make any point they want, interpet passages any way they want and that goes for the origanal languges as well.

Folks fight and bicker over the origanal Greek or Hebrew, the same words to no avail, anything can be twisted to make one’s point. And that my friends was the problem with the early church and the herisies of the Gnostics, the Arians and others, **proper interpetation needed to be preserved **or it would be lost in a quagmire of self interpetation as we see today.

Michael, do you know what is the Catholic’s Church’s interpretation of St. Ignatius’ statement, “where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.?? And I would imagine they would know exactly what he meant since he is a part of the apostolic succession. I read in an earlier post that he is talking about “the real prescence”

 

[Michael_Howard]

Michael, do you know what is the Catholic’s Church’s interpretation of St. Ignatius’ statement, “where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.?? And I would imagine they would know exactly what he meant since he is a part of the apostolic succession. I read in an earlier post that he is talking about “the real prescence”

To be exact:

**830 **The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

This may help as well:

cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/corapi/jc13.html

Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

 

[Romulus]

To be exact:

**830 **The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

This may help as well:

cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/corapi/jc13.html

Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

Catechism 830, go it. Thanks for giving me the official Catholic view. But now as you mentioned in the earlier post…its now a matter of interpretation…Protesant’s interpretation versus Catholic interpretation of Ignatius’ statement. Protestants out there…what is your interpretation of Ignatius’ statement?? What is your opinion of the context of his statement??

 

[Romulus]

To be exact:

**830 **The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

This may help as well:

cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/corapi/jc13.html

Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

Oh I forgot to add…assuming that the Catholic view is TRUE…we can “infer” that in Ignatius’ statement, it includes the “true prescence of the eucharist”.

 

[Romulus]

An if-then statement requires a connection that is always the case. A where-there statement doesn’t.

A where-there statement?? I’ve have never heard of such a thing…show me a valid source where Logic uses “where-there statements” and are distinct from “if-then statements”. Maybe I missed it, but it looks like we are not on the same page in regards to classical Logic.

You attempt to make a where-there statement an if-then. They are different kinds of statements.

Again, show me a valid source whether or not “where-there statements” actually exist and is different from “if-then statements” in classical logic.

Where Des Moines is there is Iowa is also not the same as
Where Iowa is there is Des Moines.

You are using Logic here…you are using the converse of IF-THEN statements and drawing a conclusion that the converse of a TRUE IF-THEN statement is not necessarily TRUE.

I recommend we all get ourselves on the same page in regards to Logic…and get good at it…use it to help us all reason well, to draw good conclusions based on evidence. Then we need to determine the true meaning and context of Ignatius’ statement. Then apply logic to Ignatius’ statement

peace be with you

 

[HailMary]

Thank you Dante.

That is my inquiry/observation.

To say Christ is “more” present than being present just as He promised only calls into question His veracity.

This is extremely problematic and leads to denying what Christ plainly promised His people. A “my presence is better than your presence” kind of posturing that Christ left absolutely no room for.

…

Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. A good analogy for this is love. When your wife is away, you can still feel her love but when she is next to you, you can definitely feel that same love much stronger.

 

[Truthstalker]

A where-there statement?? I’ve have never heard of such a thing…show me a valid source where Logic uses “where-there statements” and are distinct from “if-then statements”. Maybe I missed it, but it looks like we are not on the same page in regards to classical Logic.

Again, show me a valid source whether or not “where-there statements” actually exist and is different from “if-then statements” in classical logic.

You are using Logic here…you are using the converse of IF-THEN statements and drawing a conclusion that the converse of a TRUE IF-THEN statement is not necessarily TRUE.

I recommend we all get ourselves on the same page in regards to Logic…and get good at it…use it to help us all reason well, to draw good conclusions based on evidence. Then we need to determine the true meaning and context of Ignatius’ statement. Then apply logic to Ignatius’ statement

peace be with you

I’m not at all sure that what I’ve posted about where-there is even at best helpful, and I’m not going to pursue it.

 

[Romulus]

anything can be twisted to make one’s point.

And Logic can assist us in detecting and refuting this illogical “twisting”

Peter warns of the twisting of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16, “In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort”

For all I know I may be “twisting” things too! But it is not my intention to do so…I’m still aquiring knowledge in the area of Logic…we are TRUTH seekers here…we are all in the journey of enlightening ourselves and learning…and Logic can help us determine if we are twisting things inadvertanly or if someone is twisting things on you or someone else.

And I think is very unfortunate that someone will willingly use illogicalness just for the sake of winning a discussion…isn’t that pride?? Its about discovering the TRUTH… And the TRUTH may lead us where we don’t want to go…but if we are honest TRUTH seekers…we should follow it.

peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

You cannot eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood if it is not physically present. Flesh and blood, by definition, are physical.

Christ, by definition, is physical. He is a man.

"The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ, Christ…everything which is Christ, the whole Christ…Does this include the physical properties of Christ? Yes. Does it include the physical organs? Yes. It is Christ, whole and entire.” (Fr. John Hardon, Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments)etc…

The Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session
*The canons and decrees of the sacred *
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 75-91.

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Nita]

Hi Romulus,

I don’t think you can turn Ignatius’ statement into an if/then statement - at least not the one given in your post.

In a conditional statement both parts ( “if” and “then”) have to express a complete idea/sentence; at least complete enough to be judged as to their truth or falsity (ref. the truth table). By inserting the if/ then into Ignatius statement, you end up with just a phrase.
“If where Jesus is,”
Don’t know how you’d judge any truth or falsity of just that phrase.

Actually, the whole if/then construction “If where Jesus is, then there is the Catholic Church” is an incomplete sentence, or at the least, a faulty sentence.

Irregardless of turning it into an if/then statement, I still think, as stated, it is false.
“Where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.” Jesus is omnipresent, so “where He is” is everywhere. To say the Catholic Church is there also, is to say it is everywhere - omnipresent. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Church teaches that. If I’m making some logical error in the first two sentences of this paragraph, I’d appreciate anyone’s pointing it out.

I don’t understand why you ask Truthstalker the source of the where/there concept. It’s Ignatius’ statement that uses where/there. Ignatius never made an if/then statement.

Nita

 

[Atemi]

The Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session
*The canons and decrees of the sacred *
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 75-91.

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

And where is the contradiction?

If you can somehow show me that you, Randy, understand Trent better than the famous Fr. John Hardon, then please do.

Until then…

…

 

[Romulus]

I’m not at all sure that what I’ve posted about where-there is even at best helpful,

You are not sure, so let us all investigate and help each other seek the TRUTH…so we can have a better understanding. Your username is by the way “Truthstalker” and I don’t mean it in a sneering way I think it is a cool username.

and I’m not going to pursue it.

That is an unwise decision…we should all not let go of things we don’t fully understand. Especially things that are capable of being understood and reasoned.

It appears to me, so far in this thread, that we all have different interpretations of Ignatius’ statement. What can or cannot be inferred about his statement? We need to first figure that out…we may all be taking his statement out of context…or maybe one of us has it right, but if you feel you do…show everyone why you know what Ignatius meant to say in 110AD.

So, let us see what he really meant and what can be inferred. So sources to help: e.g. historical teachings, historical documents, traditions, catechism, church teachings and your reasoning…and also…and it may come to it…your FAITH.

peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

And where is the contradiction?

If you can somehow show me that you, Randy, understand Trent better than the famous Fr. John Hardon, then please do.

Until then…

…

I just thought you might like to understand that the language I presented does have some basis on Church teaching.

As for the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I personally like this language very much.

How about you?

 

[Atemi]

I just thought you might like to understand that the language I presented does have some basis on Church teaching.

I have found the term “sacramentally present” to be empty of all meaning as it is designed to be that way. In that sense, every type of presence can be either proposed or denied without consequence.

Nobody knows what it means to be “sacramentally present” so it is the best explanation possible.

As for the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I personally like this language very much.

Well it seemed you were contrasting Christ’s “presences” earlier…

"Christ is physically present at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist."

I have had Catholics argue with me in the past that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, though His very real Body is.

LOL.

Whip out “sacramental” presence and all and you can then make any claim you want. It must be nice.

…

 

[Michael_Howard]

I have found the term “sacramentally present” to be empty of all meaning as it is designed to be that way. In that sense, every type of presence can be either proposed or denied without consequence.

Nobody knows what it means to be “sacramentally present” so it is the best explanation possible.

Well it seemed you were contrasting Christ’s “presences” earlier…

"Christ is physically present at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist."
I have had Catholics argue with me in the past that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, though His very real Body is.

LOL.

Whip out “sacramental” presence and all and you can then make any claim you want. It must be nice.

…

I’m curious Atemi, in your own words could you explain the paragraph as a whole, what was the Council attempting to convey?

 

[HailMary]

Well it seemed you were contrasting Christ’s “presences” earlier…

"Christ is physically present at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist."

When Jesus was on Earth, did Jesus leave Heaven or did Heaven leave Jesus?

Cool question to ponder.

usccb.org/dpp/realpresence.htm

John 6:53-57

Amen, amen<or, I swear, I swear>, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 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<what more could Jesus Christ say to make you believe that His Flesh is true food and his Blood is true drink? Even if you don’t believe, right now, in the Eucharist, what would Jesus have to have said for you to believe in the Eucharist…just curoius>. . . . 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.

John 6:30

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Why is it hard? If he truly meant it as a symbol, why would it be “hard”? Nobody left him when he said he was the “vine”. Maybe because they understood him correctly that when He said “vine” it was symbol and they understood him correctly again when He said He was spoke of the Eucharist!