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

[Contarini]

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.

You’re not splitting hairs at all–you are pointing up the difficulty of the term.

Can you give some examples? And in those cases, what then would you mean by “literal”?

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Sure. The first example that came to mind, when I read the “literal” definition that was posted earlier, was the word “ramble”.

 

[Telstar]

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

I realize that the term Catholics use when referring to the Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is “real”, instead of literal. However, the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It happens through the act of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are literally changed. The bread and wine are no longer the same substances that they appear to be. Transubstantiation can only take place at the Consecration of the Mass, by the hands of a duly ordained Catholic Priest. It cannot happen through the action of any other minister that does not have the power given to him by God, through Apostolic succession, which is conferred upon him through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

So technically, Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. Catholics do consume the Body and Blood of Jesus, and are literally infused with a share in His Soul and Divinity, which is the only source of eternal life. In other words, this is what Jesus meant when He said:"[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

 

[Contarini]

I realize that the term Catholics use when referring to the Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is “real”, instead of literal. However, the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Telstar, you agreed above that “literal” should mean “the usual and basic meaning.”

The Eucharist is clearly not what most of us would think of when we hear the terms “Body and Blood of Christ.” All the language used about the Eucharist has to be defined in ways different from its usual meaning.

It happens through the act of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are literally changed. The bread and wine are no longer the same substances that they appear to be.

Right, and is that what we usually mean when we point to something and say “this is a body” or “this is blood”? Clearly it isn’t. Therefore, by the definition you agreed to, it isn’t literally the Body and Blood.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sure. The first example that came to mind, when I read the “literal” definition that was posted earlier, was the word “ramble”.

A very good example. And I’d say that in that case the literal meaning of the word has changed or is in the process of changing.

Similarly, the literal meaning of “awful” is “very bad.”

In your usage, what does “literal” mean? The original meaning? What counts as the “original meaning” in cases where, for instance, a word is derived from another language? Is the “literal” meaning of “educate” “to lead out”?

I don’t want to fight over what “literal” means, though of course the more we fight over what the literal meaning of literal is, the more my point is being made.

What I want is clarity. The problem I have with the common use of the word is that people slip from one meaning into another, and use the word as a club (on both sides–whether to claim superiority for a “literal” reading or to berate other people for their simple-minded “literalism”) without specifying which possible meaning they are using.

Edwin

 

[spedteacherita]

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.

I bolded the first statement because, I suppose as a Protestant, I have never heard of this author.

I also have never heard in my circle of Protestant friends and church families that there is such a suspicion. We even have a Community wide Bible Study that meets at a local Catholic Church in which I know there are many Catholics studying right along with us. I don’t see this as a real issue.

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.”

I will have to take time to look at this later. We have a family crisis right now centering around my mom so I’m not sure when I’ll be back to fully look carefully at what you have offered for studying.

Thanks for taking the time, Abu.

God bless!

Rita

 

[Telstar]

Telstar, you agreed above that “literal” should mean “the usual and basic meaning.”

I was pointing out that Eddie Mac had indeed posted the definition of ‘literal’, even though you said no one had yet defined it. But, I also agreed with that definition in this instance.

The Eucharist is clearly not what most of us would think of when we hear the terms “Body and Blood of Christ.” All the language used about the Eucharist has to be defined in ways different from its usual meaning.

That’s very true. But, it’s my belief that Jesus was actually giving a literal description of what we know as the Holy Eucharist, the “Bread of Life”, in His discourse. Most people couldn’t understand His reference at that time, nor do they understand it, now. His reference to Himself in the beginning of the discourse as being the Bread of Life, the Manna that comes down from Heaven, is the key to this entire teaching. He wasn’t talking about His physical earthly body, but His Real Bodily Presence that He would leave with us in the Holy Eucharist, which would remain in this world after He returned to the Father in Heaven. He told the Apostles that He, “will be with you always”. The Holy Eucharist is exactly how that would be accomplished.

Right, and is that what we usually mean when we point to something and say “this is a body” or “this is blood”? Clearly it isn’t. Therefore, by the definition you agreed to, it isn’t literally the Body and Blood.

Edwin

No, it isn’t. But, Jesus was speaking of the Holy Eucharist which is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that is exactly what we think of when we hear Him refer to Himself as the “Bread of Life” or “Manna from Heaven”. So, from that perspective, Jesus was most definitely speaking literally.

 

[Peter_J]

In your usage, what does “literal” mean? The original meaning?

No. I would say that, to me, “literal” is more like “the plain meaning of words without metaphor or other figure of speech”.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #356
I am generally persuaded by the claim that Catholicism is “both/and” 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.

As Jesus Himself emphasises “with God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26), there is absolutely no valid reason to accept some of the things written in the Sacred Scriptures as taught by the Christ Himself, and taught by His Church, and reject others not to our liking or feelings.

The first purely human priests of the New Covenant were the Apostles, whose priesthood was conferred at the Last Supper, which was the First Mass. All will understand Christ’s institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper only when they understand that as only the Apostles could confer the priesthood established by Christ, no other men can be real priests without that sacrament from Christ through His Apostles.

The command of Christ is crystal clear at the Last Supper, and St Paul himself attested to the realty of the Sacrifice in 1 Cor: 23-34:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor: 26,27).

The priesthood was initiated by Christ the High Priest when He commanded: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

The Hebrew verb that Christ used at the last supper was to “sacrifice” - thus, “Sacrifice this in remembrance of Me”

Just as the Christ emphatically established His Church on St Peter as head of the Twelve with all of His powers to bind and loose, with the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, on the Eucharist He then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

The reality of Christ’s own Church is that She cannot teach error in faith or morals, and we may not pick and choose from what the Christ teaches on dogma and doctrine through His Church.

 

[benhur]

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.

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

From separated brethren thread, posts 355, 353:

"There is no evidence that the apostles took it literally at this point, none.

Yes, and what was He really saying (in the discourse) ? The future transubstantiation ? The future consubstantiation ? No, at best only as a secondary lesson, but not primary. Jesus had bigger fish to fry, like plain old unbelief, and in disciples !

Jesus stopped talking as soon as faith was professed, His primary goal. Faith in Christ, not withstanding any future mode of eucharisting remembrance. "We believe " in You . Those who departed did not.

The main theme of 71 verses of John 6, to believe on the Lord Jesus as the Christ, the Lamb of God , our propitiator for sins (not the Earthly king,yet) and that is a special work and drawing of the Father. All other faith and following is vanity and off the mark"

 

[benhur]

What is so difficult to understand? What is so difficult about applying the word literal to John chapter 6?

Hi Eddie, vs 49,50 says, “your fathers ate manna and are dead. This bread (Me ) also comes down from heaven and if you eat you shall not die”

Last I heard all who have eaten this bread also die, like their fathers.?

Also, how is it that the disciples who did not believe from the beginning, and departed, give evidence of some understanding of of some type of literalness, more so than the apostles ?

 

[Maranatha33]

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

The Roman Church does hold to the literal flesh and blood in transubstantiation. (Which was an invention of pope innocent III at the 4th lateran Council of 1215 AD.) In the Council of Trents #15 and #22, It is declared that "if anyone does not believe they are eating the flesh, and drinking the Blood of Jesus, let them be anathema. (cast violently into hell) the council of Trents were reconfirmed at Vatican II in the 1960’s as official (and inerrant) Roman rules.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Wow. Can I copy and use this please?

Absolutely.

 

[rcwitness]

Right, and is that what we usually mean when we point to something and say “this is a body” or “this is blood”? Clearly it isn’t. Therefore, by the definition you agreed to, it isn’t literally the Body and Blood.

Edwin

Hey Edwin,

The way I have come to understand it, is that when an ordained priest of the Catholic Church gives blessing over the gifts of bread and wine, God (through the Holy Spirit and words of the priest) no longer regards the bread and wine as such, but as our Father in heaven (remembering His Son’s physical sacrifice) considers it to be this sacrifice.

 

[GKC]

The Roman Church does hold to the literal flesh and blood in transubstantiation. (Which was an invention of pope innocent III at the 4th lateran Council of 1215 AD.) In the Council of Trents #15 and #22, It is declared that "if anyone does not believe they are eating the flesh, and drinking the Blood of Jesus, let them be anathema. (cast violently into hell) the council of Trents were reconfirmed at Vatican II in the 1960’s as official (and inerrant) Roman rules.

Sloppy, sloppy.

GKC

 

[benhur]

Fair enough. (response to: Benhur:“Most reformers were Catholic, and did not protest but cherished how God gave the Church the bible”.

So the only way that the Reformers, and by extension, YOU, knew that the Gospel of Mark is inspired is because the Catholic Church got it right, yes?

I should stick to my statement that you say is fair enough, and not go down Sectarian Alley.

Fair things do not usually happen in alleys.

 

[benhur]

Sloppy, sloppy.

GKC

Partly agree, just as leaving out spiritual, symbolic views from historical analysis is “sloppy”.

 

[GKC]

Partly agree, just as leaving out spiritual, symbolic views from historical analysis is “sloppy”.

Opinions might vary. My comment was as to the pure history of the post. Sloppy.

 

[Contarini]

The Roman Church does hold to the literal flesh and blood in transubstantiation. (Which was an invention of pope innocent III at the 4th lateran Council of 1215 AD.) In the Council of Trents #15 and #22, It is declared that "if anyone does not believe they are eating the flesh, and drinking the Blood of Jesus, let them be anathema. (cast violently into hell) the council of Trents were reconfirmed at Vatican II in the 1960’s as official (and inerrant) Roman rules.

As GKC said, this is “sloppy” in a number of ways, but to focus on the main point: I’ve already pointed out that transubstantiation is not “literal” in the sense of using the language in its most usual or “basic” sense.

Please, if you want to move the discussion forward instead of scoring cheap polemical points, address this rather than just asserting the contrary.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

As GKC said, this is “sloppy” in a number of ways, but to focus on the main point: I’ve already pointed out that transubstantiation is not “literal” in the sense of using the language in its most usual or “basic” sense.

Please, if you want to move the discussion forward instead of scoring cheap polemical points, address this rather than just asserting the contrary.

Edwin

Yep. And as to your point on the utility of “literal” in considering transubstantiation, too.