Literal or Symbolic?...

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea- You have your “I would say” roots also .You say Luther was not guided by God…Somewhere around 3-4 th century , the bishop of Rome , and his supporters would say for the first time , "We, I , have primacy over all other bishops, because of Matt16:18 ". Well, they had to say it, cause Jesus certainly didn’t.

Sorry David…I do not re-write history or twist it to suit my needs or agendas. By the way, I have my Masters in History and I simply parrot what has been written and established by the early church. And no I do not have my “I would say” because I have no need to say anything because it is called historical history.

Oh I see,sometime around the 3-4 th century the Bishop of Rome said:

We,I, have primacy over all other bishops,because of Matt 16:18.

Wow David! All my years of study and I have yet to read any such words out of any Bishop of Rome. Kindly give the primary source confirming your factual comments? And I know Jesus certainly did not say: Luther…go for it…I am guiding you.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8563341]Don’t you even see that that is beside the point. They may deny that it is the same as consubstantiation but it is.
It is quite the point, and don’t you see that your proposal is precisely the same - precisely! - as those anti-Catholics who say you worship Mary the same way that you worship God. they say you can deny it, and claim it is hyper-dulia, but it is really the same. You may deny that it is latria, but it is.
The very first demension of charitable dialogue, ISTM, is to first listen to what a dialogue partner says they believe, and accept what they say is true about their belief. As much as I love you as a sibling in Christ, and thoroughly enjoy our dialogue, in this instance you have chosen to claim that I believe something I do not, that we believe something that we do not.

It does not matter whether they declare it officially because the definition is there.

It does not matter? Really? So, it does not matter what you say about latria and hyperdulia? It is our definition. And if you read what we say carefully, you will know that our view is not what your definition states.

As I said above, SU and IWU both point to consubstantiation. You just don’t use the term. Non use of the term does not mean that this is not what you believe.

We don’t use the term because we don’t accept the construct. If we don’t accept the construct, then in fact our expression does not fit the construct.

But that is precisely what “This is my body means”. If the bread is still there then obviously it is not his body; it is just bread which happens to hold his body. Which is exactly what Luther and what SU means. Bread is there. Christ is there. SU. Consubstantiation

Sure. Do your senses not perceive bread? So do ours. Then the words of Christ in His institution are spoken, and regardless of our sensing of bread, it is the body of Christ.
How hard is this?

No. One of them is wrong based on what Christ said.

Are you sure you are not basing this on what Christ did not say? Because whether we speak of Transubstantiation or SU, we are using terms that Christ did not use. What did Christ say - “This is my body”. It is most certainly true.

Who says it does not need explanation? Why did we go to all the trouble with the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

Who says the definition Christ gives us is not sufficient? This is my body.

What is all this “consubstantial” with the Father bit about? Is that not metaphysical? Why would you think it is okay to use such language there but then deny its legitimacy in this instance.

I’m not saying its not, but it certainly isn’t meant to say that somehow God the Father and God the Son (pre-incarnational) are substnace and accidents, either.

And by the way, you just admitted that Luther did make a metaphysical explanation.

I said “explain things”. I didn’t say metaphysical.

It is inescapable because it is evident in what Luther said and in what you have written and explained as Lutheran belief.

Read what we say. Listen to what we say about us, not what others say about us, and I will return the courtesy.

No Jon, what you do not do is use the word “consubstantiation” but you do teach what it means.

No we don’t. If we did, we would talk about substances and accidents, about the substance of bread, the substance of wine, and we don’t.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

And that would have been all fine except that Luther said that Christ is In, With, Under the bread. THAT is not the same as the Orthodox belief.

As for not defining it, well that is of course up to you. But we were given the intellect by God and that is a normal projection when you come in contact with the mystery. It is normal, healthy human endeavour for faith to seek understanding.

And if we believe that Christ kept the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in her understanding, then she is right to seek understanding. Faith and reason must go together.

benedictus2,

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with defining the Holy Eucharist through Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m simply saying that I yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, knowing that we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JonNC]

benedictus2,

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with defining the Holy Eucharist through Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m simply saying that I yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, knowing that we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

Ironically, Anna, I have told Cory the same thing. If I had to choose between the metaphysical constructs of Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, if these were the only two choices, I would side with Transubstantiation.
In both cases, however, they attempt to explain what Christ does not. And even within the Lutheran symbols, I prefer the Aology to the Augsburg Confession’s description thus:

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. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, 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. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

ironically, anna, i have told cory the same thing. If i had to choose between the metaphysical constructs of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, if these were the only two choices, i would side with transubstantiation.

I would also choose transubstantiation over consubstantiation.

in both cases, however, they attempt to explain what christ does not.

Agreed. Christ did not explain the metaphysics.

and even within the lutheran symbols, i prefer the aology to the augsburg confession’s description thus:

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. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since paul says, 1 cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of christ. 55] and we have ascertained that not only the roman church affirms the bodily presence of christ, but the greek church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of christ. And vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of cyril on john 15, in which he teaches that christ is corporeally offered us in the supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine scriptures. For who has doubted that christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear paul saying 1 cor. 10:17; rom. 12:5; gal. 3:28: We are all one body in christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of christ’s flesh, cause christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for his imperial majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire church, 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. And we speak of the presence of the living christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over him, rom. 6:9.

Augsburg Confession’s description is very clear, much more so than the 39 Articles in the Book of Common Prayer–many of which are disregarded by Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Communion. I am one of them.

Peace,
Anna

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes. The pope is nothing more than the successor of Peter. Pope does not detract from the fact that from the beginning,

the apostles had an office and as such there is a successor.

 

[david_ruiz]

Open your Bible. There you will find that it was Christ who gave Peter that primacy. If that is an issue for you, take it up with Christ

 

[david_ruiz]

Sorry David…I do not re-write history or twist it to suit my needs or agendas. By the way, I have my Masters in History and I simply parrot what has been written and established by the early church. And no I do not have my “I would say” because I have no need to say anything because it is called historical history.

Oh I see,sometime around the 3-4 th century the Bishop of Rome said:

We,I, have primacy over all other bishops,because of Matt 16:18.

Wow David! All my years of study and I have yet to read any such words out of any Bishop of Rome. Kindly give the primary source confirming your factual comments? And I know Jesus certainly did not say: Luther…go for it…I am guiding you.

I’ll get exact reference later .From “Catholic” book of popes .It was put forth 3-4th century ,by a bishop of Rome ,or at least his supporters. Again, friction had developed between east and west.

 

[benedictus2]

No Cory. It is in sacramental terms.

And who said that sacramental terms necessarily precludes the metaphysical? The sacramental implies the metaphysical.

Not in the way you are implying it - a co-mixing, and impanation, or something.
In the Lutheran understanding, yes.

Let’s go through this again slowy.

If you say that the bread remains (and it has to remain if the Christ is IWU), then somehow Christ is present WITH the bread, IN the bread and UNDER the bread. Do you get that so far?

The Capadocian said in post 263 : "Through the Words of Consecration the flesh and blood of Christ is vere adsint (=at hand, present) in, with and under bread and wine.

And you replied in post 264 with “This is well said. It points to the reason for our Understanding of Sacramental Union.”

So basically Sacramental Union means the bread exists along with Christ’s presence which is In, With, Under this bread. Are you still with me here?

But then you said in post 283: “We believe what Christ says, that “this [bread] is my body”, not “contains”, not “is mixed with”, not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.”

But how can that be? You are affirming two conflicting ideas. You said that the bread IS His Body and yet say that His Body is only In, With, Under the bread but and that the bread remains. These two cannot be true at the same time. If the bread IS His Body, then the bread is no longer bread because you are saying that it IS now His Body.

If the bread IS His Body, then it CANNOT be said that His Body is just In, With, Under the bread. Do you understand the difference there?
It cannot possibly be sacramental union, because in sacramental union the Bread IS NOT His Body but His Body is merely present IWU the bread. This kind of phrasing means that His Body is contained in the bread even though you say you are not saying that.

That is what you need to grasp. The statements that you are affirming are conflicting statements but it seems you do not see the disjoint in these statements.

That is why I have been reiterating that you seemed liked someone how says he does not believe in democracy but claims to believe in the rule of the people.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, I do.

So you be believe that the Christ is In, With, Under the bread? If so, then bread remains. So how can it be Christ’s Body if it is bread.

Of course you are. That is what Luther taught.

If that is what Luther taught then the Bread IS not His Body because in sacramental union, Christ is united to the bread but the bread is still bread. Christ is only united to the bread. Therefore in such a case one cannot say that the bread is His Body. He is present in the bread but the Bread is NOT His Body.

Luther’s is not a metaphysical statement.

He does not use Aristotelian metaphysical terms but in the end that is what it boils down to.

It isn’t a matter of denying it. It is a matter of understanding what we believe, even when those around us do not.

But what you don’t seem to seem is the way it is phrased, your beliefs state contradictory things. It is not wonder you can say that you believe this and you believe that as well. You say IWU and you say IS. But if IWU and the bread remains then it is NOT IS.

Citation, please. An offical Lutheran document that states this. Otherwise you are expressing your mere opinion on the matter

.
Refer to my earlier reply regarding citing Capadocian’s post and your reply to it.

And He did not say transubstantiated, either. So, we are back to mere human expressions of what we cannot, do not know about the mystery.

Not He didn’t So we ask, how can we see bread and yet believe the Lord when He said This is My body. Transubstantiation is the only explanation so far that explains that best.

There is no difference, if one recognizes the intent. The intent is not to philosphically explain what happens. "It is the Word which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, **but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ **
The rightness or wrongness of a theology does not determined by intent.

 

[benedictus2]

It is quite the point, and don’t you see that your proposal is precisely the same - precisely! - as those anti-Catholics who say you worship Mary the same way that you worship God. they say you can deny it, and claim it is hyper-dulia, but it is really the same. You may deny that it is latria, but it is.

No it is not quite the same because that deals with intent (some Catholics do worhip Mary to an extent as wrong as that may be but that is all due to bad catechism).

That is not quite the same as putting the theological proposition under the microscope and assesing the statement rather than the practice. What I have tried to show you is that when you say this, logically this is what this set of statements mean. It has nothing to do with the actual process of believing but where a statement logically leaves you.

he very first demension of charitable dialogue, ISTM, is to first listen to what a dialogue partner says they believe, and accept what they say is true about their belief.

And i have no doubt you believe that that is what your faith statement says. But what I am showing you is the contradiction in the two statements that you affirm. You believe two statements that contradict each other and you don’t even see that they contradict each other. That is why you keep saying with believe IWU and we believe IS. You don’t seem to see that in affirming one you have to deny the other because logically they just cannot be both true.

So again I go back to my analogy of claiming not to believe in democracy but believeing in the rule of the people.

s much as I love you as a sibling in Christ, and thoroughly enjoy our dialogue, in this instance you have chosen to claim that I believe something I do not, that we believe something that we do not.

Because you do not see the disagreeement in what you say you believe.

It does not matter? Really? So, it does not matter what you say about latria and hyperdulia? It is our definition. And if you read what we say carefully, you will know that our view is not what your definition states.

That is practice. Not logical error.

We don’t use the term because we don’t accept the construct. If we don’t accept the construct, then in fact our expression does not fit the construct.

Whether you accept the construct or not that is where it leaves you.

You say you don’t accept Aritotelian metaphysics. Fine. But when you apply Aristotelian metaphysics to the faith statement such as “IWU” and “bread is there but Christ is there”, consubstantiation is where it leads you.

Sure. Do your senses not perceive bread? So do ours. Then the words of Christ in His institution are spoken, and regardless of our sensing of bread, it is the body of Christ.
How hard is this?

So therefore once again you are saying here bread remains because we sense bread. If this is so, then it cannot possibly be the Body of Christ because it IS bread. But Christ said THIS is His Body. If it IS His Body then it is not bread. It IS His Body.

As I have said before, when we speak of union, it does not mean that one element nihilates the other.

Are you sure you are not basing this on what Christ did not say? Because whether we speak of Transubstantiation or SU, we are using terms that Christ did not use. What did Christ say - “This is my body”. It is most certainly true.

I am saying that SU cannot be reconciled with IS my Body. Only Transubstantantiation can be reconciled to the IS my body.

Who says the definition Christ gives us is not sufficient? This is my body.

That was not a definition. That was a statement effecting reality. This IS His Body so therefore His body is not merely sacramentally united to the Bread. The bread IS His Body.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not saying its not, but it certainly isn’t meant to say that somehow God the Father and God the Son (pre-incarnational) are substnace and accidents, either.

But I was not saying that either.

What I was trying to make you see is that you accept metaphysical statements in relation to the Trinity but refuse to accept metaphysical statements in relation to the Eucharist. Why the selectivity in this regard?

It seems that for you, a certain philosophical reference is fine for one theological proposition but not for another theological proposition.

I said “explain things”. I didn’t say metaphysical.

Okay

Read what we say. Listen to what we say about us, not what others say about us, and I will return the courtesy.

I have read what you say and listened to everything you have said. I say listen to what you say and put it through the microscope. Then you will see the contradictions inherent in what you say you believe.

No we don’t. If we did, we would talk about substances and accidents, about the substance of bread, the substance of wine, and we don’t.
Jon

If your statements were expressed metaphysically that is what it means.

It’s like saying no we don’t use French so we don’t call it raison d’etre. You refer to it as reason for being but if you express it in French you will say raison d’etre.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2,

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with defining the Holy Eucharist through Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m simply saying that I yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, knowing that we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

And we normally do not go to the Eucharist thinking now the bread is being transubstantiated. We also yield to the mystery there.

Defining transubstantiation does not make it any less a mystery and in fact safeguards the the truth of the statement “This is My Body” for it is precisely because people thnk and ponder and ask questions that we have come up with transubstantiation to counter other formulations which are in fact not in accord with this Divine Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[david_ruiz]

And we normally do not go to the Eucharist thinking now the bread is being transubstantiated. We also yield to the mystery there.

Defining transubstantiation does not make it any less a mystery and in fact safeguards the the truth of the statement “This is My Body” for it is precisely because people thnk and ponder and ask questions that we have come up with transubstantiation to counter other formulations which are in fact not in accord with this Divine Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The first part of statement is quite humble and inviting, all encompassing, uniting .Too bad CC could not resist putting the mystery in a box, to the chagrin of some of her children. The dogmatic box is “the” fact you allude too. It is interesting that an interpretation is a “fact”. Yes, we all tell it like it is.

 

[benedictus2]

The first part of statement is quite humble and inviting, all encompassing, uniting

Well it wasn’t meant to be that. It was a mere statement of fact. I don’t (and as far as I know others don’t do that either). That was not a statement meant to invite.

.Too bad CC could not resist putting the mystery in a box, to the chagrin of some of her children.

The mystery has not been put in a box. It is just an acknowledgement that some do exercise their intellectual faculties and if the Church does not step in and weigh the theologies being proposed and say which one gives justice to the mystery, then some heretic will come out with one.

When the Church is not convinced that she can teach something dogmatically, then she does not.

We see this in the case of predestination. She has not declared as dogma either of St Thomas’ or St Augustine’s position.

The Church is a teacher and she has to live up to that call by Christ.

The Catholic faith is an intelligent religion and she lives up to that when she continues to ponder these mysteries and arrive at answers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The dogmatic box is “the” fact you allude too. It is interesting that an interpretation is a “fact”. Yes, we all tell it like it is.

It is not a box, it is merely a statement of what the Church has arrived at to be the truthful explanation of this mystery.

The dogma does not destroy the mystery but your position denies the mystery. Your position does not allow for mystery that is why the most you can say is that the presence is symbolic. There is no mystery in that.

Evangelical Chrisians just have no grasp of the mystical so they resort to a somewhat scientific explanation of their faith - since we see bread then the presence must only be symbolic not real.

PS. I know you have posted a few replies earlier but I have to go to bed now so will reply tomorrow.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’ll get exact reference later .From “Catholic” book of popes .It was put forth 3-4th century ,by a bishop of Rome ,or at least his supporters. Again, friction had developed between east and west.

" The Papacy" by Paul Johnson. May not be Catholic . Is a British historian .Quote is:“Pope Stephen (254-257) was the first pope to use Matt: 16:18-19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” ) to justify his sees authority.Yet neither Carthage nor the major sees in the east were prepared to accept papal jurisdiction”…“Cyprian held an African council of bishops because of popes excommunicating for improper baptismal creeds etc…Cyprian, “It remains that each of us declare his opinion, judging no one,nor depriving anyone of the right of communion if he differs from us .For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops”. Though Stephen was not mentioned directly here, Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia (232-272), wrote to Cyprian that Stephen had claimed Petrine authority to excommunicate others, but had succeeded in only excommunicating himself”…I’d be happy to read any earlier documents using Matt. 18. Again the issue was accepting baptisms from other rites/churches. By the way, Stephen in this decision claimed that baptism is for forgiveness of sins and does NOT transmit the Spirit, hence accepted all “Christian” baptisms, as CC does today.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8566445]And who said that sacramental terms necessarily precludes the metaphysical? The sacramental implies the metaphysical.

Not me. I’m just saying Christ didn’t say, regarding metaphysics.

Let’s go through this again slowy.

My intention is not to take this as condescending. Our history of friendly and cordial dialogue won’t allow me to do so.

If you say that the bread remains (and it has to remain if the Christ is IWU), then somehow Christ is present WITH the bread, IN the bread and UNDER the bread. Do you get that so far?

What did Christ say? Held held BREAD, and said, “This IS my body”. Prior to consecration it is mere bread. By the power of the Holy Spirit when the words of consecration are spoken, it is the body of Christ. Our senses perceive the form of bread, yet it is the body of Christ. And since we do not, cannot know (Christ chooses not to tell us) how this miracle happens, we receive the true body of Christ in, with, and under what our senses perceive as bread.

The Capadocian said in post 263 : "Through the Words of Consecration the flesh and blood of Christ is vere adsint (=at hand, present) in, with and under bread and wine.

And you replied in post 264 with “This is well said. It points to the reason for our Understanding of Sacramental Union.”

This is exactly right. See above for the meaning of this!!!

So basically Sacramental Union means the bread exists along with Christ’s presence which is In, With, Under this bread. Are you still with me here?

Of course bread exists. That is what Christ held. But with the words of consecration and the power of the Holy Spirit, it is no longer mere bread. It is called and truly is the body of Christ.

But then you said in post 283: “We believe what Christ says, that “this [bread] is my body”, not “contains”, not “is mixed with”, not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.”

Exactly.

But how can that be?

It is what Christ said.

You are affirming two conflicting ideas. You said that the bread IS His Body and yet say that His Body is only In, With, Under the bread but and that the bread remains.

Where did I say “only”. When you receive the blessed sacrament, do your senses not perceive bread? Yet you know you are receiving His body. This truly is 2 conflicting ideas. So, yes. I am affirming two conflicting ideas - 1) my senses perceive bread, 2) Christ’s words confirm that it is called and truly is the body of Christ.

These two cannot be true at the same time. If the bread IS His Body, then the bread is no longer bread because you are saying that it IS now His Body.

So, the Holy Spirit is incapable of doing this. The Holy Spirit is required to perform the greatest of all miracles in a way that fits your human perception.

If the bread IS His Body, then it CANNOT be said that His Body is **just **In, With, Under the bread. Do you understand the difference there?

I didn’t say “just”.

It cannot possibly be sacramental union, because in sacramental union the Bread IS NOT His Body but His Body is merely present IWU the bread. This kind of phrasing means that His Body is contained in the bread even though you say you are not saying that.

Read what I have written. Read what the Lutheran confessions have written. We do not say it is contained, or co-mingled, or creates a new substance. I not only say I’m not saying these things. I. in fact, am not saying these things.

That is what you need to grasp. The statements that you are affirming are conflicting statements but it seems you do not see the disjoint in these statements.

Because they are not disjointed. They only appear that way to you because you are fixed on substance and accidents.

That is why I have been reiterating that you seemed liked someone how says he does not believe in democracy but claims to believe in the rule of the people.

Well there you are. As an American, like our founders, I do not believe in democracy. Instead I believe in the rule of the people through a constitutional representative republic - our form of government. Even your comparison seems to miss the point.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8566565]And we normally do not go to the Eucharist thinking now the bread is being transubstantiated. We also yield to the mystery there.

How so, Cory? You say it must be transubstantiated in a way that Christ chooses not to explain. You say it must be this way, that the Holy Spirit must do it this way. How does that yield to a mystery, when you claim the mystery must be “this way”?

Defining transubstantiation does not make it any less a mystery and in fact safeguards the the truth of the statement “This is My Body” for it is precisely because people thnk and ponder and ask questions that we have come up with transubstantiation to counter other formulations which are in fact not in accord with this Divine Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Now this is a true statement. The Catholic theologians in the dialogue article I referenced earlier state as much. And btw, that is precisely why I say that Transub is not a stumbling block for me, personally, because of what these theologians say about it, and the way you phrased it above. They then goes on to say that the two expressions do not effectively contradict in a way that should lead to Church division. They see our expression are sufficient to protect the statement, “This is my body”.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

benedictus2,

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with defining the Holy Eucharist through Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m simply saying that I yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, knowing that we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

And we normally do not go to the Eucharist thinking now the bread is being transubstantiated. We also yield to the mystery there.

I would say the same thing.

Defining transubstantiation does not make it any less a mystery and in fact safeguards the the truth of the statement “This is My Body” for it is precisely because people thnk and ponder and ask questions that we have come up with transubstantiation to counter other formulations which are in fact not in accord with this Divine Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I didn’t say defining transubstantiation makes it any less a mystery. And—as I said before; I’m not saying there is anything wrong with defining the Holy Eucharist through Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

Like you, I don’t "go to the Eucharist thinking now the bread is being “transubstantiated.” I yield to the mystery, just as you said you do.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll get exact reference later .From “Catholic” book of popes .It was put forth 3-4th century ,by a bishop of Rome ,or at least his supporters. Again, friction had developed between east and west.

Yes,by all means I want to read those very words from a primary source. As for his supporters? Sorry David,but that is not the same as saying an actual pope said it himself. I too can say a bunch of stuff about the President of the U.S. but does not mean he said it himself.

History is not presented in such a manner.