Literal or Symbolic?...

[sallybutler]

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

Off subject

 

[JonNC]

Brilliant! Metaphysically speaking, these are the only two choices.

Exactly, metaphysically speaking. And metaphysically speaking, I have no problem with transub. Its just, I don’t see the need, other than the reasonable observation that some some might reject the real presence, to speak metphysically.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8569258]No one (as far as I know) think of transubstantiation when they are at Mass. All they think of is that Christ is there. That the bread is now the Body and Blood of Christ. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree with the doctrine but I don’t think transubstantiation when I am before the Real Presence.

And I frankly, don’t think of SU when I receive. My thinking is exactly the same as yours.

The only time I think about it is when I am in a forum and and have the need to defend the doctrine. Same thing with the Trinity and the Hypostic Union. You are just there, present before the mystery.

Agreed again. And considering the thread - Literal or Symbolic - if you feel the need to defend transub as a way of defending the doctrine of the RP, then you have my support.

And I think the more present and given over one is to the mystery, the more the doctrine makes sense. Because I know is now longer bread but truly Christ that I can defend the doctrine.

And I completely understand your POV.

We say the mystery is this way as opposed to that way which is a heretical proposition.
We yield to the mystery of the Trinity and the Htypostatic union and yet explain them in metaphysical terms.

OK

We are intellectual beings. At some point in time we ask quesitons. We know that we can never pierce the Divine Mysteries to its fullness but the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can say what is and is not a proper understanding of this mystery.

OK

If we truly trust the Holy Spirit and if we truly trust in the promise of Christ, then we know that in matters of doctrine, He will guide His church.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

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

Oh I do sleep tight and do not lose sleep,because it is all a pack of lies until you learn how to present sources ACCURATELY. David do you think your method of presenting sources will not be caught by people who have B.A.'s, Masters or higher in history? Seriously?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8569773]And neither did He regarding the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. So should we eschew these doctrines because they are metaphysical pronouncements that did not come from His mouth?

Nope

Exactly. It IS the Body of Christ. Christ’s Body is not In, With, Under the Bread. Instead the Bread IS His Body. IS- being. Not location. The being of the bread is the being of Christ

I can understand your intense desire to defend the doctrine of Transub.

If the Body is IWU then it is not IS. If you receive the Body of Christ In, the Bread, With the Bread then the Bread IS NOT the Body of Christ.

OK. again, I understand your POV.

This is what you fail to grasp. IWU and IS are mutually exclusive.

From your POV, I can see why you might perceive the SU that way.

That is why only Transubstantiation and not sacramental union makes sense if we are to affirm that we see bread and yet we say it IS the bodyf of Christ.

I understand this perception.

If that is right, then the bread IS NOT the Body of Christ. If the bread IS the Body of Christ, thent that is wrong.

Of course, we say it is, but again I can understand your view.

No longer MERE bread? When you say it is no longer “mere” bread, then it is still bread, just not “mere”. It is bread that has somehow taken on heightened properties, perhaps even supernatural properties if you like, but it is still bread – just not mere and therefore that bread IS NOT the Body of Christ. For it to BE the Body of Christ, then it must no longer BE bread.

Then put it in Transub words - when it is no longer mere bread, it is simply accidents.

If that is so then Christ is not In, With, Under the Bread which negates sacramental union.

In metphysical terms, think of it as I with and under the accidents.

Christ did not say my body is In, With, Under the bread. He did not say that He is united to the bread.

Peace,
Jon

 

[joe370]

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

The appellation pope was not adopted as an affectionate term for the bishop of Rome until the 4th or 5th century, but it sounds like you are asking: how many bishops of Rome aka pope, existed during the apostle John’s lifetime. Is that what you are asking?

 

[joe370]

Exactly, metaphysically speaking. And metaphysically speaking, I have no problem with transub. Its just, I don’t see the need, other than the reasonable observation that some some might reject the real presence, to speak metphysically.

Jon

Jon, Transubstantiation, as you know, means the change of the substance of bread and wine (Eucharist) - into the substance of the Body and Blood, respectively, of Jesus Christ, while all that is accessible to our senses remains as before.

Isn’t that what you and I believe?Is it the whole “accidents” thing that seems superfluous to you?

 

[Nicea325]

The appellation pope was not adopted as an affectionate term for the bishop of Rome until the 4th or 5th century, but it sounds like you are asking: how many bishops of Rome aka pope, existed during the apostle John’s lifetime. Is that what you are asking?

Well from my memory,at least 4 popes had already lived and served God before the NT was complete between 100-110 A.D.

 

[MartinJordan]

Jon, Transubstantiation, as you know, means the change of the substance of bread and wine (Eucharist) - into the substance of the Body and Blood, respectively, of Jesus Christ, while all that is accessible to our senses remains as before.

Isn’t that what you and I believe?Is it the whole “accidents” thing that seems superfluous to you?

Did anyone see Mark Shea’s article : “Change you can believe in”?

Quite fascinating.

MJ

 

[david_ruiz]

The appellation pope was not adopted as an affectionate term for the bishop of Rome until the 4th or 5th century, but it sounds like you are asking: how many bishops of Rome aka pope, existed during the apostle John’s lifetime. Is that what you are asking?

Hi joe370 Yes .I did think that my term was “wrong” and untechnical ,negating an answer .Sorry. But yes, they were first known as bishops of Rome ,but even that is inadequate for you did not have such heirarchy (episcopy ?) for quite a awhile .That is ,there may have been many bishops IN Rome at the same time ,making it difficult to say which one was heir to Peter. Anyways, there were four from what I have seen. St.Linus ((64-76), St.Cletus (76-80), St Clement (88-97), St. Evaristus (97-105). Source is:" The Lives of the Popes" by Michael Walsh ,a Catholic historian , former Jesuit. I understand other lists may have slight variations in first five… P.S.-“The Papacy”, by Paul Johnson, British historian has St.Linus, St. Anacietus, St. Clement, St. Evaristus.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh I do sleep tight and do not lose sleep,because it is all a pack of lies until you learn how to present sources ACCURATELY. David do you think your method of presenting sources will not be caught by people who have B.A.'s, Masters or higher in history? Seriously?

Sorry .“The Papacy” does not give any primary sources at back of book,only as stated thruout book .Do not know his source of St. Stephen quoting Matt 16 .Perhaps the letter to Cyprian from Firmillian has the source.

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry .“The Papacy” does not give any primary sources at back of book,only as stated thruout book .Do not know his source of St. Stephen quoting Matt 16 .Perhaps the letter to Cyprian from Firmillian has the source.

No offense to you David,but that is something I routinely encounter with many Protestants. Their information is distorted,perverted,skewed or merely a “proof-text” to present a smoking gun. Why present sources,if one cannot do it honestly and more important,accurately? It is all done as a way to debunk the CC at all costs by twisting the works and words of others. It is so weak and disingenious. :tsktsk:

 

[david_ruiz]

“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

St Augustine later recanted ascribing "rockmass’ to Peter. The Fathers of the Church-St Augustine book 1 page 90

 

[sallybutler]

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

Before you accuse me of being sarcastic, this is a serious question.

Did electricity exist before it was named electricity? Or as Shakespeare said

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

And as it says in Timothy Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, lander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble.

 

[david_ruiz]

No offense to you David,but that is something I routinely encounter with many Protestants. Their information is distorted,perverted,skewed or merely a “proof-text” to present a smoking gun. Why present sources,if one cannot do it honestly and more important,accurately? It is all done as a way to debunk the CC at all costs by twisting the works and words of others. It is so weak and disingenious. :tsktsk:

Perhaps, and I detest untruths also .Some where down the road faith settles in . I feel your statement is quite a carpet, condemning the good (truthful ) with the bad (skewed,untruthful) alike. Neither you nor I have proof that Mr. Johnson is skewed/untrue in his statement. I will withhold generalities on it. With a little bit of work, it could be corroborated or debunked I am sure.Certainly someone used this scripture first to debunk protesting.Using your criteria ,or at least something I know for sure, ,beyond a shadow of a doubt, first hand , and that I can recall , it was first proposed to me by Catholic 2 years ago for the first time. So to me this interpretation was used beginning two years ago.Silly though isn’t it ,but that is strict firdsthand.

 

[david_ruiz]

Before you accuse me of being sarcastic, this is a serious question.

Did electricity exist before it was named electricity? Or as Shakespeare said

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

And as it says in Timothy Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, lander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble.

Hi Sallybutler .Perhaps you misunderstood me .I used the term “pope” quite loosely ,knowing a little of it’s history (that it was not used from the beginning).I really meant the successors to Peter ,as found in a “list” of popes today. Anyways, I gave the list in # 923 thread.

 

[Nicea325]

Perhaps, and I detest untruths also .Some where down the road faith settles in . I feel your statement is quite a carpet, condemning the good (truthful ) with the bad (skewed,untruthful) alike. Neither you nor I have proof that Mr. Johnson is skewed/untrue in his statement. I will withhold generalities on it. With a little bit of work, it could be corroborated or debunked I am sure.Certainly someone used this scripture first to debunk protesting.Using your criteria ,or at least something I know for sure, ,beyond a shadow of a doubt, first hand , and that I can recall , it was first proposed to me by Catholic 2 years ago for the first time. So to me this interpretation was used beginning two years ago.Silly though isn’t it ,but that is strict firdsthand.

No David…it is not carpet statement,but a fact! Condemning the good? Now that seems more like a cop-out on your behalf to conceal an error I caught. Hmmmm?

 

[david_ruiz]

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)

 

[david_ruiz]

No David…it is not carpet statement,but a fact! Condemning the good? Now that seems more like a cop-out on your behalf to conceal an error I caught. Hmmmm?

Ok. Are you saying St Stephen never ascribed Mat 18 to the headship ,papacy ,see of rome ,or whatever term is appropriate ? Should we write the publishers and call for correction ? If indeed I agreed it was an error it would be a cop-out. Right now I have his word and your word, and neither of you are “primary”. So, if you can say something here on these threads, I suppose Mr Johnson could be represented here also. And let the reader be aware .But for sure , you seem prejudicial, that is you have not shared any evidence.

 

[je333]

Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?

how about you, my brother, may i ask you to answer your own question?