Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[Reuben_J]

Technically, I suppose you could see it that way, unless you consider the fact that for Roman Catholics, there is only one Holy Eucharist that is valid for us to receive. So, from that perspective, there is only one place to find that Eucharist on earth, which is in one of the Catholic Churches that are in full Communion with the Holy See, in Rome. And, it is still the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for mankind.

Others are free to disagree, but that’s my own personal belief on the subject. I could be wrong. If someone can show me where the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching is different from anything I said, then I would certainly defer to the teaching of the Church, and apologize for my ignorance.

Rest assured, that’s about it. There is no need to apologize for this. Regardless of what we say about the different churches and their Eucharist, the Catholic Church is still the place where we should go to receive it, where and when possible.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #312
The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly shows that you (and Keating, if he agrees with you) are wrong here. Authorized Catholic translations were absent altogether in late medieval England and some other times and places during the Middle Ages, and were allowed after 1564 only to those who had special permission to read them.

Karl Keating is not “wrong” and, after some years, by 1846 again, “the online *Catholic Encyclopedia *article on SCRIPTURE, by A.J. Maas points out that the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.”
defendingthebride.com/bb/proctaim.html

The temporary restrictions of the time were to reduce or prevent the erroneous versions and uncertain Catholics from being led astray.

Well-known Catholic author Peter Kreeft observes:
“The classic Protestant suspicion is that Catholics fear the Bible; that the Church forbade the laity to read it for centuries because if that had been allowed, people would have seen how unscriptural Catholic doctrines were. This is simply untrue, of course, but is still widely believed among Protestants. The belief is declining, though, in the face of the strong encouragement by Vatican II and all recent Popes to Catholic laity to read Scripture regularly. This has done more to win Protestant respect than perhaps anything from Rome since the Reformation. Protestants have suspected that we fear the Bible ever since Luther discovered its dynamite.”
{“Protestant, Catholic Views on the Bible,” National Catholic Register, 3 November 1991, p.10}

But, of course, there were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church.

 

[spedteacherita]

Karl Keating is not “wrong” and, after some years, by 1846 again, “the online *Catholic Encyclopedia *article on SCRIPTURE, by A.J. Maas points out that the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.”
defendingthebride.com/bb/proctaim.html

The temporary restrictions of the time were to reduce or prevent the erroneous versions and uncertain Catholics from being led astray.

Well-known Catholic author Peter Kreeft observes:
“The classic Protestant suspicion is that Catholics fear the Bible; that the Church forbade the laity to read it for centuries because if that had been allowed, people would have seen how unscriptural Catholic doctrines were.

Are you saying that the Protestants are suspicious of the laity fearing the Bible or those who are in clerical positions? Just wanting to clarify - not trying to argue…

This is simply untrue, of course, but is still widely believed among Protestants. The belief is declining, though, in the face of the strong encouragement by Vatican II and all recent Popes to Catholic laity to read Scripture regularly. This has done more to win Protestant respect than perhaps anything from Rome since the Reformation. Protestants have suspected that we fear the Bible ever since Luther discovered its dynamite.”
{“Protestant, Catholic Views on the Bible,” National Catholic Register, 3 November 1991, p.10}

But, of course, there were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church.

Will you post a link for the reference about the Bible translations info? I’d like to share it with others. Thanks!

Have a blessed day, Abu

Rita

 

[Peter_J]

Technically, I suppose you could see it that way, unless you consider the fact that for Roman Catholics, there is only one Holy Eucharist that is valid for us to receive. So, from that perspective, there is only one place to find that Eucharist on earth, which is in one of the Catholic Churches that are in full Communion with the Holy See, in Rome. And, it is still the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for mankind.

Others are free to disagree, but that’s my own personal belief on the subject. I could be wrong. If someone can show me where the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching is different from anything I said, then I would certainly defer to the teaching of the Church, and apologize for my ignorance.

Thanks. I’ll be sure to file the phrase “Technically, I suppose you could see it that way” away for the next time I find myself in a sticky situation.

But that aside, it sounds to me like you are agreeing with me now that others like the Eastern Orthodox have the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Contarini]

Karl Keating is not “wrong” and, after some years, by 1846 again, “the online *Catholic Encyclopedia *article on SCRIPTURE, by A.J. Maas points out that the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.”

And for some centuries the default assumption was that it would probably cause harm.

This was a terrible mistake, as recognized by the contemporary Catholic Church: “Access to Sacred Scripture should be opened wide to all the Christian faithful.”

The temporary restrictions of the time were to reduce or prevent the erroneous versions and uncertain Catholics from being led astray.

I have already shown, citing the CE, that the concern was not simply about erroneous versions. There was a concern that even reading authentic Catholic translations could lead people astray. Scripture was, for some centuries, treated as “advanced” spiritual material that most laypeople weren’t ready for.

Only a person blinded by Protestant ideology would fail to see that this policy was founded on legitimate concerns with plenty of evidence behind them.

Only a person blinded by Catholic ideology would fail to see that it was a spiritually disastrous policy nonetheless–a cure much worse than the disease.

Most of your quotes repeat things that have already been said and that I do not dispute. It would make discussion with you much easier if you would address things I actually say instead of just trotting out the same stock citations over and over.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m not going to read all 20 odd pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been posted.

To me, the one certain part of scripture that will determine whether or not any denomination has the whole truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit is whether or not they believe with their whole heart, mind, and soul the words of Christ in John chapter 6, the Bread of Life discourse. Literally.

Actually, to me any position that uses the word “literally” pretty much automatically loses the argument.

The word “literal” is almost meaningless, as far as I can see. Pretty consistently, people who use it as a trump card have not even begun to think about hermeneutics.

If this issue is important to you, please begin by defining the word “literal.”

Edwin

 

[Telstar]

Thanks. I’ll be sure to file the phrase “Technically, I suppose you could see it that way” away for the next time I find myself in a sticky situation.

But that aside, it sounds to me like you are agreeing with me now that others like the Eastern Orthodox have the Holy Eucharist.

I should have known someone would bring it up, so I had to figure out a way to approach it, delicately.

There is one thing I might want to add, for a little more clarification. There is a difference between those churches that are usually referred to as “Eastern Orthodox”, who are not in communion with the Holy See in Rome, and others that are usually referred to as “Eastern Catholic”, which are in full communion with the Pope, but have different forms of Catholic Liturgy. That’s just one part of what makes things “complicated” when we discuss other “Catholic” or “Orthodox” churches. It gets a wee bit confusing. :whacky:

 

[SonOfMan]

Ha!

I was giving ‘bad Popes’ the benefit of the doubt in that they would know they could not change, what could not change.

Or it just means they were hypocrites.

Much more dramatic and interesting to have a wayward Pope lose his life for trying.

Or he could have been assassinated and made to look like a natural cause.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Actually, to me any position that uses the word “literally” pretty much automatically loses the argument.

The word “literal” is almost meaningless, as far as I can see. Pretty consistently, people who use it as a trump card have not even begun to think about hermeneutics.

If this issue is important to you, please begin by defining the word “literal.”

Edwin

Literal -taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

Do you take John Chapter 6 as a metaphor? A parable?

The word literal is not meaningless, maybe in your world.

I stand by my assertion. It is what I believe, and is the dogma of the Catholic Church. I don’t understand how anyone who claims to be Christian cannot believe what Christ said.

One reason I used the for literal is because the vast majority of non-Catholic Christian denominations insist they take the Word of God literally. They do not.

41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring* among yourselves.w
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.x
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

And

60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?*
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.c
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

The disciples understood Jesus literally. What is so difficult to understand? What is so difficult about applying the word literal to John chapter 6?

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, to me any position that uses the word “literally” pretty much automatically loses the argument.

Granted this wasn’t addressed to me, but if I may comment it seems to me to be quite a generalization.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Granted this wasn’t addressed to me, but if I may comment it seems to me to be quite a generalization.

I suppose 2+2 is not literally 4 and truth is not literally truth.

 

[Peter_J]

truth is not literally truth.

Well shaw: obviously literal truth isn’t literal truth, but I’m going to hope that non-literal truth is literal truth.

 

[Contarini]

I suppose 2+2 is not literally 4 and truth is not literally truth.

That isn’t an argument. My point is that if you are making an argument and you justify your position by saying that it’s “literal” as opposed to some other position that you don’t like as much, you have pretty much lost me.

I shouldn’t say “has pretty much lost the argument.” I was overstating to counter the apparent belief by many people here that calling one’s position “literal” bestows some sort of superiority on it. My point is that if you use the word “literal” that way, you make me seriously question whether you have any good reasons for holding your position at all.

But I’m open to counterexamples. The examples you gave don’t count unless you can give me some meaningful situation in which they occur. In what sort of argument about mathematics would the phrase “2 + 2 is literally 4” be meaningful?

And I note that no one has taken me up on my invitation to define “literal.” But probably this, like many of the topics raised on this thread, should have a thread of its own. I have argued this point before with specific reference to the Eucharist.

Edwin

 

[Telstar]

Literal -taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

And I note that no one has taken me up on my invitation to define “literal.”

I suppose I could be wrong, again, but that looks like the definition of ‘literal’, to me.

 

[Abu]

spedteacherita #339
Are you saying that the Protestants are suspicious of the laity fearing the Bible or those who are in clerical positions? Just wanting to clarify - not trying to argue…

The statement that ‘Well-known Catholic author Peter Kreeft observes:
“The classic Protestant suspicion is that Catholics fear the Bible; that the Church forbade the laity to read it for centuries because if that had been allowed, people would have seen how unscriptural Catholic doctrines were,” ’ refers to Protestants feeling that the Catholic Church and Her hierarchy in general fear the Bible as Her doctrines, those Protestants feel, are unscriptural.

Will you post a link for the reference about the Bible translations info? I’d like to share it with others. Thanks!

Sure, please do.

History - Why didn’t people in the Middle Ages read the Bible?
catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.php
*This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore *
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.

“The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin.”

 

[Peter_J]

I shouldn’t say “has pretty much lost the argument.” I was overstating to counter the apparent belief by many people here that calling one’s position “literal” bestows some sort of superiority on it. My point is that if you use the word “literal” that way, you make me seriously question whether you have any good reasons for holding your position at all.

Exactly.

By the way, earlier I came across this article: Have we literally broken the English language? (Came up when I googled just “literally” … explain that one. ) I like its point out how something that used to be clever or inventive isn’t any more.

 

[Contarini]

I suppose I could be wrong, again, but that looks like the definition of ‘literal’, to me.

OK, so can we define “literal” as “in their most usual sense”? That is what the term means to me.

It is not what it means in Catholic Eucharistic theology.

Catholics do not believe that they are eating Jesus’ body and blood in the usual and most basic sense of the word. To say “the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, while the accidents remain” is to preclude the “usual and most basic sense” from applying to anything having to do with the Blessed Sacrament.

When I speak of eating a steak, I do not mean that I am eating something called the “substance” of the steak. I mean that I am eating a physical thing with certain observable physical properties, such as sight, taste, etc.

In a previous argument I had on this subject, the case was made that “literal” here means “real, not metaphorical.” I.e., Jesus’ body and blood are truly present and not merely in a figurative way. And just to be clear, I believe that. (My difficulties with becoming Catholic concern the fact that I believe Jesus is present in Protestant Eucharists as well.)

I don’t, myself, think that using the word “literal” about the Presence is a good idea, because “literally” is best defined in the way you have done: as referring to the usual or most basic sense of a word. The language used about the Eucharist is, by necessity, not being used in its usual or most basic sense.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Contarini #353
(My difficulties with becoming Catholic concern the fact that I believe Jesus is present in Protestant Eucharists as well.)

Why, when only validly ordained priests have the power to confect the Eucharist?

**Interfaith communion
Question from Roger Duchene on 02-24-2005 (EWTN): **
Is it possible for a Catholic to recieve “communion” in a Protestant Church as an ecumenical gesture?

**Answer by Robert J. Flummerfelt, J.C.L. on 02-24-2005: **
No. It is NOT Holy Communion, but rather just bread since Protestant ministers lack the power to confect the Eucharist in their churches.
tinyurl.com/kqm6fe7

 

[Peter_J]

OK, so can we define “literal” as “in their most usual sense”?

Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I’d take issue with that definition. To my mind, there are some words that are usually not used in their literal sense.

 

[Contarini]

Why, when only validly ordained priests have the power to confect the Eucharist?

That is one of the points of Catholic doctrine on which I have difficulty.

I am generally persuaded by the claim that Catholicism is “both/and” while many forms of Protestantism are “either/or.” That works on a lot of issues, but not on issues of ordination and sacramental validity. These are the points I find difficult, perhaps impossible to accept.

Edwin