The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[Newsy]

I find your dismissal of Christ’s words as merely a “figure of speech” to be shallow and lacking.
What sort of figure of speech is that?? It doesn’t even make sense.
It clearly reveals the problem with abandoning the oral Tradition of the Apostles for one’s own private interpretation.

 

[jamesrussell49]

Catholic and Protestant scholars both examine interpolations in early literature as well as the Bible. I am pretty sure that what church you belong to has absolutely nothing to do with textual criticism in an academic sense.
As to the content of your post as it relates to interpretation, I understand your point. I just do not share your interpretation. That is not the kind of thing that I can lie to myself about. As far as your part about being careful, that is just silly. Being Catholic would not mean any change in lifestyle, morals, etc. It would also not mean a change in belief because I would not be a Catholic unless I believed as they did.

The verse in question cannot be factually determined to be an amendation. Just because a verse does not exist in an early manuscript(s) (as is the case here with acts 8:37), does not mean it was not there originally. For example, the verse could be in manuscript A, of which B1 and B2 are copies, but B1 omitted the verse. Later C2 is copied from B2… and D2 is copied from C2. The original, A, is of course, long gone. After some time, B2 and D2 are also lost/destroyed (but not before E2 is copied). Now all that’s left is B1, C2, and E2. B1 is considered the oldest manuscript and C2 and E2 are later “versions” containing the “emendation”…

It might be someone’s opinion that the verse should not be there. But that’s all it amounts to.

 

[jamesrussell49]

hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view, you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position.

What majority (not that Dogma is up for “voting”)? Numerically, Catholics and Orthodox far outnumber all protestants combined, not only in present numbers, but all the great thinkers and scholars of the preceding 1500 years before Luther.

Historically, there was no other interpretation. It has always been the literal blood and body. This “symbolism” evolved slowly after the reformers. Even they were not entirely dismissive (ie. Martin Luther’s Consubstantial) of the Mystery of the Lord’s Supper. They certainly were not to the point of “it’s just a symbol” like many protestants are today.

 

[jamesrussell49]

hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view, you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position.

Lord’s Supper
1 Cor 11:23-31
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep (as in “dirt nap”, “6 feet under”, DEAD)

If these are just symbols, does that not seem extreme that it would kill and injure people?

In light of this verse, does a literal interpretation of john 6 really seem implausible?

 

[Newsy]

hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view, you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position.

I see we are back to the “Holy Spirit guides us” argument. Millions of people being led in different directions, all being “led by the Holy Spirit”. Seems confusing, could some be misled? Are most using a modern translation to inflect their ideas into the text? We are back to the same question Pilot had, “What is truth?”.

Some of the greatest theologians in history have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is correct. I am just a layman, I need to find guidance from the Church Christ gave us. The Church has greater minds than mine, who have spent years investigating, I trust them.

 

[mark_a]

hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence

Source please.

 

[Mickey]

it designates it to be a memorial and proclamation…nothing about a real bodily presence,

You are sadly mistaken. “Remembrance” does not equate to some type of symbolic memorial.

nothing about conversion of elements

"…and the bread that I will give, is my flesh…"
The Gospel According to St John

by your logic that would make their brotherly and sisterly love a sexual act and not a spiritual condition.

No…I think that would be by your logic.

Again, it we apply your reasoning to another matter we get:

Instead of attempting to twist my reason and logic to fit your bizarre analogies…let’s look at the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church to see if what you say rings true. We will start with the Eucharist. So far…your argument is extremely weak for a symbolic meaning. Do you have anything else?

Since you seem to be obssessed with the POJ, perhaps you could start a separate thread…I have much information to contribute.

Their status as scripture was debated and it was resloved without an uproar being preserved in history.

Again…if you want to talk about the canon of Scripture and how various books were included and why others were left out…we can have a wonderful conversation. But your analogy to the Eucharist is weak and faulty. The Eucharist was, and is, a central doctrine to the apostolic faith…it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Your tradition threw this out the window and now you are trying to justify the innovation.

Your assumption that an uproar would necessarily follow is not supported by the way the early Church resolved the status of Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas

Nonsense…when major heresies erupted…there was a great commotion and a council to correct it. Believe me, if the Real Presence was an invention…there would have been a great commotion.

 

[Mickey]

You are sadly mistaken. “Remembrance” does not equate to some type of symbolic memorial.

"…and the bread that I will give, is my flesh…"
The Gospel According to St John

No…I think that would be by your logic.

Instead of attempting to twist my reason and logic to fit your bizarre analogies…let’s look at the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church to see if what you say rings true. We will start with the Eucharist. So far…your argument is extremely weak for a symbolic meaning. Do you have anything else?

Since you seem to be obssessed with the POJ, perhaps you could start a separate thread…I have much information to contribute.

Again…if you want to talk about the canon of Scripture and how various books were included and why others were left out…we can have a wonderful conversation. But your analogy to the Eucharist is weak and faulty. The Eucharist was, and is, a central doctrine to the apostolic faith…it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Your tradition threw this out the window and now you are trying to justify the innovation.

Nonsense…when major heresies erupted…there was a great commotion and a council to correct it. Believe me, if the Real Presence was an invention…there would have been a great commotion.

 

[Radical]

Who made you the Authority on John 6?

nobody

If you are going to explain it contrary to the Teaching of the Church,…

I haven’t…though my explanation may be contrary to the teaching of your Church. In response, your options include actually addressing my points or making an appeal to authority…

 

[Radical]

I find your dismissal of Christ’s words as merely a “figure of speech” to be shallow and lacking.

so, understanding “I am the true vine” in a figurative manner would be a “dismissal of Christ’s words”?

What sort of figure of speech is that?? It doesn’t even make sense.

is that still more grumbling we hear?

It clearly reveals the problem with abandoning the oral Tradition of the Apostles for one’s own private interpretation.

and your reference to an unverifiable oral tradition that you attribute to the Apostles nicely reveals the problem with your approach.

 

[Radical]

What majority (not that Dogma is up for “voting”)? Numerically, Catholics and Orthodox far outnumber all protestants combined,…

you are right, but what percentage of Catholics believe in a real bodily presence? Do the math and you’ll find that majority.

Historically, there was no other interpretation. It has always been the literal blood and body.

Augustine is one ECF that scholars point to as not believing in a real bodily presence…and that would include some reputable Catholic scholars too.

 

[Radical]

Lord’s Supper
1 Cor 11:23-31
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep (as in “dirt nap”, “6 feet under”, DEAD)

If these are just symbols, does that not seem extreme that it would kill and injure people?

In light of this verse, does a literal interpretation of john 6 really seem implausible?

I have seen this argument a lot whilst here. This is how I responded before:

regarding 1 Cor 11

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Three things in response to your reference to 1 Cor 11.

1. Please note the use of “Therefore” at the start of verse 27. That use would mean that Paul saw the reason for the guilt as being the fact that the Lord’s Supper was a proclamation/shew of the Lord’s death (and not b/c some real bodily presence was involved).
2. My oldest and dearest friend is a good Catholic fellow who complains that twice a year (at Christmas and Easter) he has a hard time finding a seat at his church because the twice-a-year-Catholics (2YCs) show up and fill up the place. It seems to me that if the real bodily presence of the Lord (RBP) caused people who participated unworthily to get sick (as you seem to claim), and if the Catholic Eucharist actually involves a RBP (as you claim), then the emergency rooms should see a serious spike in attendees at Christmas and Easter (exactly b/c of those 2YCs…yes, some would get their acts together, but a good percentage would be unworthily participating). It would be very easy to empirically test this hypothesis and I can only wonder (with all the studies that have been done trying to improve our health care system) why such a pronounced spike hasn’t been spotted. I kinda suspect that it is b/c such a spike doesn’t exist (b/c a RBP also doesn’t exist). As a result, people are falling over at the Catholic Church to the same extent as they do at the waffle house.
3. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 is more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved

…So, WRT the topic of this thread, I would say that it is merely an assumption that Ignatius belonged to a Church that believed in a real bodily presence.

 

[Newsy]

nobody

I haven’t…though my explanation may be contrary to the teaching of your Church. In response, your options include actually addressing my points or making an appeal to authority…

’
I have been addressing your points. I have made it clear that I appeal to the Authority of the Catholic Church.
What specific points have I failed to address?

 

[jam070406]

so, understanding “I am the true vine” in a figurative manner would be a “dismissal of Christ’s words”?

This is not the passage we’re talking about.

is that still more grumbling we hear?

I see you can’t answer the question.

and your reference to an unverifiable oral tradition that you attribute to the Apostles nicely reveals the problem with your approach.

It’s verifiable, as has been shown to you over and over. Which you choose to ignore. The problem is yours.

 

[Mickey]

so, understanding “I am the true vine” in a figurative manner would be a “dismissal of Christ’s words”?

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

 

[Mickey]

Augustine is one ECF that scholars point to as not believing in a real bodily presence…

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
St Augustine

 

[Radical]

So far…your argument is extremely weak for a symbolic meaning. Do you have anything else?

if you want to see what else I have had to say, then search my posts for “real bodily presence”.

Since you seem to be obssessed with the POJ, perhaps you could start a separate thread…I have much information to contribute.

what obsession? I mentioned it once (with an abbreviated title) and the fellow couldn’t figure out what I was referring to…thanks for your offer, but maybe you could just refer me to the scholarly works that you think are most thorough.

Again…if you want to talk about the canon of Scripture and how various books were included and why others were left out…we can have a wonderful conversation.

again, I am less interested in your opinion that I am in the opinions of scholars. In 2011 I have bought and read Exploring the Origins of the Bible (Evans and Tov) and The Canon Debate (McDonald and Sanders)…do you have anything else that you would recommend?

Nonsense…when major heresies erupted…there was a great commotion and a council to correct it. Believe me, if the Real Presence was an invention…there would have been a great commotion.

A real somatic presence arises with the fourth century Antiochean school. (see Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West) It was not an eruption, it was a gradual development…like the Canon, it didn’t burst on the scene in one fell swoop. Instead, it gradually came together.

 

[jam070406]

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

St. Justin Martyr - “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

 

[Radical]

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

this is all dealt with here at posts 42-45

 

[jam070406]

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons - “Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D