Literal or Symbolic?...

[Anna_Scott]

Excellent!

Christ did not explain the Trinity either and yet our formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine is metaphysical.

At one point or another, there arises a necessity to define doctrines or we will all just muddle along in heresy.

I can’t really argue with that. Defining doctrines can indeed guard against heresy and the Catholic Church has done much to defend Christian orthodoxy down through history.

However, I don’t think the Real Presence is any less “real,” simply because I have not sought a definition in metaphysical terms.

I think we are splitting hairs at this point----when you, JonNC, and I all believe in the Real Presence.

You don’t have to whack us over the head :blackeye: with a metaphysical definition.

I get it. In the Holy Eucharist, we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

 

[david_ruiz]

Again,you provided a SECONDARY SOURCE. Second,where does Stephen say the words you asserted? Where David?

Primary sources…please!

LOL! Was he referring to primacy here? Please provide more information from Cyprian to see what he really meant.

:yawn: Same ole Protestant classics of slicing and dicing ECF works to present a smoking gun. Try again.

Yes, sleep tight, for it all must be a pack of lies.

 

[david_ruiz]

You are aware that Jesus didn’t preach in Greek. And the language he used has only one word for rock. Sort of like English.

yes ,that is the catholic rebuttal .The Greek written scripture is not inspired I guess, for it fails the Aramaic correctness test. As long as we are placing ourselves right there at the scene of the discourse ,don’t forget the facil expressions and hand gestures that people use while speaking . Was it impossible that Christ gestured to himself when he said “upon this rock” will the church be built ? Would brash Peter have needed this humble reminder ? Heck ,only seconds later Peter did stick his foot in his mouth and had to br rebuked. Yes, I like up close and personal.

 

[benedictus2]

I can’t really argue with that. Defining doctrines can indeed guard against heresy and the Catholic Church has done much to defend Christian orthodoxy down through history.

However, I don’t think the Real Presence is any less “real,” simply because I have not sought a definition in metaphysical terms.

No one has said otherwise. The Orthodox didn’t define it but it is real.

But what is perplexing about the Anglican is that they are not Eastern Orthodox. They came from the Catholic Church. What makes them think that they have the right to eschew doctrine when they feel like it. Same with their decision regarding divorce, contraception, priestesses, homosexual marraige, actively homosexual priests, lesbian priests, etc. I wonder with such decisions whether it can even be rightly called Christian.
I think we are splitting hairs at this point----when you, JonNC, and I all believe in the Real Presence.
No it is not splitting hairs. If the Lutherans had done what the Orthodox did and left it at that, then that would have been fine. But they didn’t. Considering that they came up with their own doctrine 2000 years after the Church has defined the right doctrine then one wonders why they even did.

If it is indeed splitting hairs, then they would not have needed further definition becuase it was already defined.

You don’t have to whack us over the head :blackeye: with a metaphysical definition.

Whose whacking who with a definition? No one is forcing the definition on any one. The reason we are discussing this is because it happens to BE the TOPIC and it is precisely this definiton that we are tryig to discuss.

I get it. In the Holy Eucharist, we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Peace,
Anna

Or is it? The validity of the eucharist rests on the validity of the priesthood. Holy Orders and Eucharist are inseparable. With the theological nouveau approach of the Anglican, then one wonders whether their priesthood is even valid. Is it really Christ when a priestess is the one who does the consecration?

 

[sallybutler]

yes ,that is the catholic rebuttal .The Greek written scripture is not inspired I guess, for it fails the Aramaic correctness test. As long as we are placing ourselves right there at the scene of the discourse ,don’t forget the facil expressions and hand gestures that people use while speaking . Was it impossible that Christ gestured to himself when he said “upon this rock” will the church be built ? Would brash Peter have needed this humble reminder ? Heck ,only seconds later Peter did stick his foot in his mouth and had to br rebuked. Yes, I like up close and personal.

I’m only suggesting that trying to be literal when converting from aramic to greek to elizabethian english to american english, one is liable to run into misunderstandings. Having studied French for more years than I care to admit to, it took me a while to get use to the idea that a table was female in nature (la table) and a floor is masculine (un etage). Did you know that in France, the first floor is what we call the second floor. So yes, understanding the language of the day and why a particular word would have been used (would the writers call Peter Petra, the feminine version of rock) is important.

 

[david_ruiz]

What about the council of Chalcedon?

What about it ?

 

[david_ruiz]

The New Testament was never part of Holy Scripture until the Catholic Church said so

 

[david_ruiz]

So it is your belief that unless a teaching or a practice is found directly in scripture it is not to be believed?

Yes and no. Certainly all things are to be considered on this basis and the merits of the case. Do you like “boxes”?

The apostolic age closed around the turn of the 1st century with the death of saint John. How could one expect there to be a record of Petrine succession in one of the books of the NT?

Do you know how many popes there were for john to kiss their ring ? Do we not know in scripture of quite a few "ordinations (Timothy ,Stephen etc) ?

“For, if the order of succession of Bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus, Evaristus…etc etc…” (Letters, No 53) Augustine

What one father proposes another deposes. Tertullian, before Augustine, has a quote also that says succession is balogni.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’m only suggesting that trying to be literal when converting from aramic to greek to elizabethian english to american english, one is liable to run into misunderstandings. Having studied French for more years than I care to admit to, it took me a while to get use to the idea that a table was female in nature (la table) and a floor is masculine (un etage). Did you know that in France, the first floor is what we call the second floor. So yes, understanding the language of the day and why a particular word would have been used (would the writers call Peter Petra, the feminine version of rock) is important.

Thank you sallybutler.So you had to study french to understand it .So did the inspired writer get it wrong with his greek.Was he ignorant of the understanding of not the aramaic , but the actual oral/spiritual transmission of what he was told ? But I see your point for in English it is not differentiated as in the greek that it was translated from .Not sure if Latin has two words for rock. Anyways, it is like the word “hell” in the English, which covers several Greek words and several Hebrew words .We roll them into one with" Hell".

 

[david_ruiz]

Sorry but the interpretation you speak of is completely grounded on Scripture. Scripture which happens to be a Catholic book. And the claim is so plainly supported there that only those who have ulterior motives would read it otherwise.

Well, actually the motives are plain to see for such a Catholic interpretation also.

The apostles are the foundation of the Church as well but you cannot get away from Scriptural data that says Christ singled out Peter and told him that His Church will be built upon him. That is very plain to see.

It is plain to see it as a Catholic development .The opposite is plain to see in scripture and early father writings, I mean real early.

Christ gathers,

Do you call denying freedom of religion ,scripture in the vernacular, killing heretics as Christ lovingly gathering? Was this prayed for also ? Again, the speck is in both our eyes, regardless of your denial for the sake of one upsmanship.

Exactly. Sin separates us all which means our seperation is brought about by sin. Therefore the “reformation” cannot be anything but born of sin, born of a lie.

Yes, but whose sin ? Whose lie ? Was it that by indulgences you can be “covered” ? Was it that whatever the church does , is holy ? Was it denying freedom of religion ?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I can’t really argue with that. Defining doctrines can indeed guard against heresy and the Catholic Church has done much to defend Christian orthodoxy down through history.

However, I don’t think the Real Presence is any less “real,” simply because I have not sought a definition in metaphysical terms.

I think we are splitting hairs at this point----when you, JonNC, and I all believe in the Real Presence.

You don’t have to whack us over the head :blackeye: with a metaphysical definition.

I get it. In the Holy Eucharist, we are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ.

No one has said otherwise. The Orthodox didn’t define it but it is real.

But what is perplexing about the Anglican is that they are not Eastern Orthodox. They came from the Catholic Church. What makes them think that they have the right to eschew doctrine when they feel like it. Same with their decision regarding divorce, contraception, priestesses, homosexual marraige, actively homosexual priests, lesbian priests, etc. I wonder with such decisions whether it can even be rightly called Christian.

No it is not splitting hairs. If the Lutherans had done what the Orthodox did and left it at that, then that would have been fine. But they didn’t. Considering that they came up with their own doctrine 2000 years after the Church has defined the right doctrine then one wonders why they even did.

If it is indeed splitting hairs, then they would not have needed further definition becuase it was already defined.

Whose whacking who with a definition? No one is forcing the definition on any one. The reason we are discussing this is because it happens to BE the TOPIC and it is precisely this definiton that we are tryig to discuss.

Or is it? The validity of the eucharist rests on the validity of the priesthood. Holy Orders and Eucharist are inseparable. With the theological nouveau approach of the Anglican, then one wonders whether their priesthood is even valid. Is it really Christ when a priestess is the one who does the consecration?

benedictus2,

What doctrine have I “eschewed”? You said “the Orthodox didn’t define it but it is real.” I agree. I’m not denying the Real Presence or even transubstantiation. I’m simply saying it doesn’t have to be defined to be real, as I’ve already said:
Anna Scott;8570501:

However, I don’t think the Real Presence is any less “real,” simply because I have not sought a definition in metaphysical terms.

I even acknowledged:

Defining doctrines can indeed guard against heresy and the Catholic Church has done much to defend Christian orthodoxy down through history.

You are right, the thread topic is the Eucharist-literal vs. symbolic. So, I was out of line with the “whacking over the head” comment. It just seems like we should celebrate our common beliefs at some point.

BTW, the thread topic is not “the evils of Anglicanism.” Surely you know by now that not all Anglicans believe in same-sex ordination/marriage, etc. . . . . To make such a blanket statement is to misrepresent Anglicanism.

I’ve had the valid orders discussion so many times, I could argue your side for you; but that’s not the topic of this thread either.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .
But what is perplexing about the Anglican is that they are not Eastern Orthodox. They came from the Catholic Church. What makes them think that they have the right to eschew doctrine when they feel like it. Same with their decision regarding divorce, contraception, priestesses, homosexual marraige, actively homosexual priests, lesbian priests, etc. I wonder with such decisions whether it can even be rightly called Christian.

benedictus2,

I just said, in my last post: “Surely you know by now that not all Anglicans believe in same-sex ordination/marriage, etc. . . . . To make such a blanket statement is to misrepresent Anglicanism.” You also questioned whether or not an Anglican can be called Christian–which would include me. You are entering offense territory here.

I do not want my beliefs to be misrepresented any more than you, as a Catholic, would want your beliefs to be misrepresented. In that spirit, I ask you to take a few minutes to read 2 of my posts from the “Article on Baptist vs. Catholic beliefs” thread. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611380&page=3

Post #80

Anna_Scott:

Came across this same article a couple of months ago. I contacted the Pastor:

"Dear Pastor,
I read Baptist vs. Roman Catholic Beliefs. I am a conservative Anglican convert (I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church.) However, I am very familiar with Catholic doctrine. You have seriously misrepresented Catholicism in your comparison. Please review the following quotes from The Catechism of the Catholic Church: . . .

Post #81

Continued

My response:
"This is a very sad and tragic reply. Where is the love of Christ in what you have said below?

Peace and blessings."

Pastor’s response:
"I was very sad and tragic that I as a minister of the Gospel should have to rebuke you for the wicked sin of trying to seduce a preacher to believe a lie. Your own concience should have stopped you forom doing that sin in the first place. Neverthess, you do not appear to be the least bit ashamed of your wicked sin. This is both sad and trajic.

The love of Christ constrained me to rebuke you for you sin, so that you might have a chance to repent and avoid the judgement before Christ for your sin at the Last Judgment. Have you repented, or will you perhaps continue to try to seduce other preachers in the future? God’s peace and blessing will not come upon you if you do. Be afraid. Be very afraid. May the love of Christ contrain you to repent and so experience God’s peace and blessing for doing so."

Do you see how serious it is to misrepresent the beliefs of others? It’s disturbing to me, even when it’s not my beliefs that are misrepresented.

I ask the OP to please forgive the above sidebar.

Peace,
Anna

 

[joe370]

david ruiz

Do you know how many popes there were for john to kiss their ring ?

Sarcasm is so ugly, especially when it comes from Christians, and sadly both catholics and non-catholics here at CAF have been guilty of it. :twocents:

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2,

What doctrine have I “eschewed”?

i was not speaking particularly of you. I am speaking of the Anglican Church.

You are right, the thread topic is the Eucharist-literal vs. symbolic. So, I was out of line with the “whacking over the head” comment. It just seems like we should celebrate our common beliefs at some point.

Yes indeed we should. But what is the point if we remain seperated. Just so we can give ourselves pats in the back for having something in common?

So long as we think that it is enough that we have things in common, then there will never be unity for that which divide, we will regards as of little consequence.

BTW, the thread topic is not “the evils of Anglicanism.” Surely you know by now that not all Anglicans believe in same-sex ordination/marriage, etc. . . . . To make such a blanket statement is to misrepresent Anglicanism.

But it is not a case of what you or this and that Anglican believe. It is what Anglicanism believes. If you believe that the Anglican Church is wrong to ordain women, then why are you Anglican? Holy Orders is pivotal to what we believe. Compromising that compromises what is central to our belief - the Eucharist.

I’ve had the valid orders discussion so many times, I could argue your side for you; but that’s not the topic of this thread either.

The validity of the orders impinges on this discussion because if the order is not valid, believe as you may that it is Christ, it remains simply bread.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2,

I just said, in my last post: “Surely you know by now that not all Anglicans believe in same-sex ordination/marriage, etc. . . . . To make such a blanket statement is to misrepresent Anglicanism.” You also questioned whether or not an Anglican can be called Christian–which would include me. You are entering offense territory here.

Again, I am not talking about you. I am talking about Anglicanism itself.

Once it started making its own doctrines - doctrines mind you that are contrary to Christian belief - then one wonders wether such a Church can be referred to as a Christian Church. The lives and faiths of individual Anglicans are not the ones in question here. Most of them were horrified when their heirarchy deviated from the true path. But what can they do?

Mind you, the same question applies to all other denominations who have thrown off this or that Christian teaching and still have the temerity to claim they are a Christian Church.
I do not want my beliefs to be misrepresented any more than you, as a Catholic, would want your beliefs to be misrepresented.
I am not misrepresenting your (personal) beliefs. But I think I have been spot on in what I have said about Anglicanism.

There are indeed factions within the Anglican umbrella which are not very happy witht he turn that it has taken.

Below is a link to Dwight Longenecker’s conversion story.

dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/conversion.asp

You might also like to read Convinced by Truth by John Fleming.

theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/book-review-convinced-by-the-truth/

Both were Anglicans.

In that spirit, I ask you to take a few minutes to read 2 of my posts from the “Article on Baptist vs. Catholic beliefs” thread. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611380&page=3

I have no doubt that your beliefs are sound ( at least those which I have read).

Which brings me to the question again: Why are you Anglican and if you don’t believe that it can willy nilly decide to deviate from Christian teaching?

 

[benedictus2]

yes ,that is the catholic rebuttal .The Greek written scripture is not inspired I guess, for it fails the Aramaic correctness test.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Christ spoke Aramaic period. If you want to know what Christ meant, then you have to undeerstand the language in which he said it.

And yes the Greek written scripture is inspired and if you go to John’s Gospel you will find this: Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)

If Cephas is Rock in Aramaic and Cephas translates to Peter then Peter means Rock.

As long as we are placing ourselves right there at the scene of the discourse ,don’t forget the facil expressions and hand gestures that people use while speaking . Was it impossible that Christ gestured to himself when he said “upon this rock” will the church be built ?

So you don’t you understand sentence structure?

Would brash Peter have needed this humble reminder ? Heck ,only seconds later Peter did stick his foot in his mouth and had to br rebuked. Yes, I like up close and personal.

Which Christ would have already known Peter would do and yet He still picked Peter to be the one upon whom He will build His Church. More correctly I would say He agreed with His Father because it was God the Father who revealed this to Peter.

 

[benedictus2]

Holy Scripture was so at the moment of it’s inspiration.That is like saying a child is not human until it is declared born and healthy. .No, life begins at “conception”.

And pray tell when was the NT conceived? Was there an NT before pentecost. Was there an NT before there was even the Church who wrote it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

So when Peter laid hands and anointed the next “pope”, the whole world knew it and so with the next successor

You are getting more absurd by the minute.

Yes, the whole world knew about it becuase by then the whole world was already Christian. And yes, they knew about it becuase the other apostles were on the ready with their iPhones to text the message out. They even capture it on their iPads and they sent those pictures via the internet to all the other members of the Church.

.Then is anything ever written ? Didn’t everybody know Mattias was selected as Judas’s replacement ? Why did that have to be in scripture ?

]
So that the world will know that there is such a thing as an apostolic office! So that when a David Ruiz asks about the office, Benedictus2 can reply with this. And so that Benedictus2 can say - well didn’t you notice that Peter was the one who officiated at the filling of this office?

Why do we know of Stephen and others who were anointed and laid hands on for their "commission/ordination ? They are in scripture. Papal succession is not in scripture cause it never happened .

Aaah David, you know what - the Trinity is not in Scripture either so it must not be true.

And there is nowhere in the Bible that says if it is not in the Bible then it did not happen.

You are inventing a stupid criteria because you have run out of rational rebuttal.

Here are a few more things that are not in the Bible.

Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Once saved always saved, start your own protestant denominational church, make your own criteria for what may or may not be believed. In short, it is not in the Bible that one must invent one’s own doctrine and one’s own church.

Your church is not in the Bible and most of your beliefs are not in the Bible so to put it simply, you are not being very Biblical.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, actually the motives are plain to see for such a Catholic interpretation also.

Nope. It was always believed to be so. Your interpretation is 500 years at best

It is plain to see it as a Catholic development .The opposite is plain to see in scripture and early father writings, I mean real early.

Sorry but history proves you wrong as we have already shown several tiems over.

Do you call denying freedom of religion ,scripture in the vernacular, killing heretics as Christ lovingly gathering?

Huh? What has that got to do with it? You are obviously unfamiliar of the bloody history of protestantism.

For that matter, how many heretics do you think were killed?
As for denying freedom of religion, it is the protestants who forced protestantism on the people. The princes became protestant and demanded that their subjects be as well. They persecuted and massacred Catholics.

Yes my dear, even Luther had to admit that they have become even more corrupt and vile than those that they had hoped to “reform”.

Was this prayed for also ?

No. We are all fallen human creatures. But the joyous thing is that Christ has established a Church through which He intends to save us.

Again, the speck is in both our eyes, regardless of your denial for the sake of one upsmanship.

In behaviour perhaps. As I have said before, if Luther had just protested agains the abuses it would have been fine. But he had to invent doctrines. He was arrogant enough to think he knew better than all the popes, saints and theologians who have gone before him.

And every protestant church has been so since. When they disagree with the current church they simply up and go set up one themselves.

Yes, but whose sin ?

Both sides but more on the protestant side because as has been shown. Reform happened but not through them. Through faithful Catholics who answered the corruption with holiness.

Whose lie ?

The Devil’s… which the deformation bought.

Was it that by indulgences you can be “covered” ? Was it that whatever the church does , is holy ?

Indulgence is a sound doctrine. It is biblical. The practice however was abused. The Church is holy because she the Body of Christ. Her members are not always so. But in the end, her members will be so.

Was it denying freedom of religion ?

You mean the freedom of religion that the protestants denied the Catholics? Oh, you don’t know about that?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Again, I am not talking about you. I am talking about Anglicanism itself.

Once it started making its own doctrines - doctrines mind you that are contrary to Christian belief - then one wonders wether such a Church can be referred to as a Christian Church. The lives and faiths of individual Anglicans are not the ones in question here. Most of them were horrified when their heirarchy deviated from the true path. But what can they do?

Benedictus2,
I wasn’t aware that an “it” can make doctrines. Any time you make blanket statements about Anglicanism, you are talking about everyone in the Anglican Communion, which includes me.

I am not misrepresenting your (personal) beliefs. But I think I have been spot on in what I have said about Anglicanism.

You are not spot on, because not all Anglicans believe what you claim Anglicans believe.

There are indeed factions within the Anglican umbrella which are not very happy witht he turn that it has taken.

There are many conservative Anglicans, such as myself, who are heartbroken over the decisions made by a “faction” in the Anglican Communion. Remember the Communion is made up of people, not an “it.”

. . .Below is a link to Dwight Longenecker’s conversion story.

dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/conversion.asp

You might also like to read Convinced by Truth by John Fleming.

theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/book-review-convinced-by-the-truth/

Both were Anglicans.

I know that some are leaving the Anglican Communion. Some are choosing Communion with Rome. Some are choosing Eastern Orthodoxy. Some are leaving the Communion and claiming to maintain historical conservative Anglicanism.

Others, like me, remain in our conservative Parishes, living out our faith in our communities. Our conservative leaders are aligning with other conservative leaders and are working, from within, for a return to orthodoxy----believing that further splits and splintering do not necessarily serve a good purpose.

I have no doubt that your beliefs are sound ( at least those which I have read).

Good to hear. Our beliefs are really not that far apart.

Which brings me to the question again: Why are you Anglican and if you don’t believe that it can willy nilly decide to deviate from Christian teaching?

This “willy-nilly” deviation in Christian teaching and practice is not embraced by all Anglicans. There is very little difference between Anglo-Anglicanism and Catholicism–the primary difference involves the view of Papal primacy and authority–one of the same issues that separates Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

If I convert to Catholicism, it will be because I can embrace the Catholic faith with my whole heart. That day may come, as I have a great respect for Catholics. In the mean time; I’m a conservative in the Anglican Communion, still here discussing the issues with Catholics.

So, back to the thread topic: Literal or Symbolic. . . .

Peace,
Anna

 

[david_ruiz]

Sarcasm is so ugly, especially when it comes from Christians, and sadly both catholics and non-catholics here at CAF have been guilty of it. :twocents:

Sorry .but how many popes were there during John’s lifetime ?