Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[alanjeddy]

The problem justaking4 has with his lack of understanding of Jesus’ preaching of His real presence in the Eucharist, is that Jesus was speaking literally not metaphorically. He doesn’t seem to be capable of understanding that the biblical writers used the Greek word torgo which means to eat or gnaw on meat or flesh.Also he fails torealize or he is blind to the fact that Jesus audience left scandalised. If they knew in John 6 that Jesus was speaking symbolically ,they would have stayed and moreover Jesus would have told them but He didn’t for He meant what He said.

 

[dconstruct]

Biblical literalists are lost in doctrinal error.

No one has the authority to interpret the Bible except the Magisterium of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Church has made it clear that interpreting the Bible literally leads to “grievious doctrinal error.”

Between 325AD and 327AD, the fathers of the church met in Nicea and decided which books would comprise the bible and how those books should be interpreted. That tradition of interpretation lives on in two institutions, tragically seperated: the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the lands that comprised what was once the Byzantine and Russian Empires.

With that said, if you are a protestant (from any denomination), then you are divorced from the grace that accompanies apostolic succession and your understanding of the message of Christ is inherently flawed. That many protestant (mostly Calvinist) churches persist in this wrong-mindedness is not odd when you consider that the living prescence of the spirit of Christ is not to be found in their congregations. This is why Roman Catholics are forbidden to accept communion in these churches and is why these people are not welcome to receive communion in ours.

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3117813]The problem justaking4 has with his lack of understanding of Jesus’ preaching of His real presence in the Eucharist, is that Jesus was speaking literally not metaphorically.

Here is what the word “literally” means—strictly adhering to basic meaning: in a way based on the explicit meaning of a word or text.
Now if i take what Jesus is saying in John 6 literally this would require you to believe that Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism.
This is the only way you could take it on your view.

He doesn’t seem to be capable of understanding that the biblical writers used the Greek word torgo which means to eat or gnaw on meat or flesh.

I checked a Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words and it says that it is used of "metaphorically" of the habit of spiritually feeding on Christ and then makes reference to the passages in John 6. It definitely is not to be taken literally.

Also he fails to realize or he is blind to the fact that Jesus audience left scandalised. If they knew in John 6 that Jesus was speaking symbolically ,they would have stayed and moreover Jesus would have told them but He didn’t for He meant what He said.

There are a number of things going in this passage that they had a very difficult time believing or accepting from Jesus. From the sense of the passage they knew what Jesus was saying but they could not accept it.

 

[justasking4]

dconstruct;3117835]Biblical literalists are lost in doctrinal error.

No one has the authority to interpret the Bible except the Magisterium of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Church has made it clear that interpreting the Bible literally leads to “grievious doctrinal error.”

The problem with your assertion is that your church has only interpreted less than 20 verses of the entire Bible. That means over 99% of it you can have no true understanding of it since your church has never interpreted it for you.

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;3117462]There are two terms that apply: Literal and Literalist. Example: “It’s raining cats and dogs outside”

1. Literalist: Animals are falling from the sky.

Actually this is not a correct usuage of the term. Better to say its figuative or metaphorical since the word means–figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things

1. Literal: It is raining heavily.

It would be actual flesh for the literalist, but that is observably false… Literally, it becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in its substance, while maintaining the appearance of bread.

What you have here is a contradiction. When something changes in substance it changes in appearance or in properties. If there is no change then nothing happened. So it is with eucharist.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

The problem with your assertion is that your church has only interpreted less than 20 verses of the entire Bible. That means over 99% of it you can have no true understanding of it since your church has never interpreted it for you.

Dude, the interpretations are responses to heresies! They were done mainly to preserve the faith which was under attack. To lock every single verse to a rigid interpretation would be against the truth, require several lifetimes, and you would still disagree.

Among other things, the Catholic Church teaches salvation of the invincibly ignorant. That is not in scripture either, but should be no small comfort.

But, Merry Christmas and a Blessed new year.

 

[dconstruct]

Justasking4 said:

The problem with your assertion is that your church has only interpreted less than 20 verses of the entire Bible. That means over 99% of it you can have no true understanding of it since your church has never interpreted it for you.

And so it is like God himself that defies our attempts to categorize and grasp rationally.

Does that mean that we rely on our own powers of reason (limited and degenerate as they are) to fill in gaps that obviously cannot be filled? Do we strive after a false order because we lack the faith to proceed blindly into the chaotic darkness?

If we look at the “churches” that have chosen this way, those “rationalist,” Calvinist churches, we see so much fire and brimstone, self-righteousness and hubris. Surely, those things are not of God nor from God based on those “20” or so verses that have been interpreted. That being the case, the argument still stands.

If the Church isn’t qualified to interpret the Bible (with its 1700 years of experience with these texts), why should I buy into the musings of some backwater preacher from rural North America? It only makes sense if you begin from a position of error.

Sorry, the guy who started MY church was JESUS (Y’Shua Ben Y’sef) of Nazareth, not John Calvin (or Martin Luther or Henry Tudor).

 

[po18guy]

Actually this is not a correct usuage of the term. Better to say its figuative or metaphorical since the word means–figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things

What you have here is a contradiction. When something changes in substance it changes in appearance or in properties. If there is no change then nothing happened. So it is with eucharist.

Christ’s peace.

OK. Good luck with judgment.

 

[justasking4]

dconstruct;3117861]And so it is like God himself that defies our attempts to categorize and grasp rationally.

Does that mean that we rely on our own powers of reason (limited and degenerate as they are) to fill in gaps that obviously cannot be filled? Do we strive after a false order because we lack the faith to proceed blindly into the chaotic darkness?

If we look at the "churches that have chosen this way, those “rationalist,” Calvinist churches, we see so much fire and brimstone, self-righteousness and hubris. Surely, those things are not of God nor from God based on those “20” or so verses that have been interpreted. That being the case, the argument still stands.

If the Church isn’t qualified to interpret the Bible (with its 1700 years of experience with these texts), why should I buy into the musings of some backwater preacher from rural North America? It only makes sense if you begin from a position of error.

I didn’t say they were not qualified but that they have only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses. If i was catholic who wanted to know what the scriptures mean i would find this extremely shocking. This means you really have no understanding what the scriptures mean. This is in reality no better off than the backwater preacher from rural North America

Sorry, the guy who started MY church was JESUS (Y’Shua Ben Y’sef) of Nazareth, not John Calvin (or Martin Luther or Henry Tudor).

That may be but you don’t have much to stand on in claiming to know what Jesus meant either in His teachings since your church has never infallilby interpreted His teachings for you.

 

[dconstruct]

If it is only possible for a Roman Catholic to understand 20 verses of the bible, than that is still 20 verses more than any protestant may claim. Divorced from the grace of Apostolic Succession and the sacraments, without any traditional context to understand the bible within, your own argument makes the case that protestants understand little to nothing of the true message of Christ.

It has always baffled me that protestants hold up the bible in such high regard but totally reject the editorial voice that actually created the bible as we all know it today. Then again, in the face of Calvinist snake-handling and “speaking in tongues” there is little that doesn’t baffle me about protestants…especially American protestants.

 

[LittleDeb]

justasking4,

I responded early in but have been patiently reading since then. I am trying to understand what it is you are really saying. It sounds like you have a basic misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches about Scripture study.

The reason those “20 or so verses” have been infallibly defined is because there can be only one interpretation of them. On those particular verses anything else is heresy.

Let’s take one we probably agree on, say the Incarnation. It has been defined through Apostolic succession to mean that Jesus, though eternally second person of the Holy Trinity, became flesh at a finite moment in time. In other words to say that He became fully human while still fully divine. (Sorry, bad nutshell description but I don’t want to go on a tangent.)

What that infallible interpretation means is that any other interpretation is NOT possible. Any interpretation that says Jesus is partially divine or somehow lost His divinity while living an earthly life, is complete heresy, IOW not Christian.

But, how specifically to “love your neighbor as yourself” can be answered in numerous stripes and flavors. That particular phrase doesn’t need to be infallibly defined. For one to interpret that phrase ‘within Catholic teaching’ merely means that the interpretation cannot violate any other teaching.

Does that clear up some of your confusion?

 

[po18guy]

What does it mean to understand the Bible as a whole?

This is the view of scripture as a seamless garment. A continuum of God’s covenants with man from the beginning. The only thing new about the NT is that Christ is the fifth and final covenant with man.

The fact is you are speculating on John 6 since your church has never infallibly interpreted John 6.

Infallible teachings are given on specific doctrines when heretics attack the church. Each infallible teaching is a response, a defense of the faith.

Problem is that in many cases the verses don’t support the doctrines as has been demonstrated in the John 6 discussion.

If you would like to read how an Evangelical, who is thankful for Evangelicalism, came to believe in the Real Presence, I will mail you his book. Or, you can pick one up at any Catholic bookstore. It is Mark P. Shea’s This is my Body (An Evangelical discovers the Real Presence).

The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. - Bishop Fulton Sheen.

Christ’s peace at Christmas and through the year.

 

[alanjeddy]

Actually this is not a correct usuage of the term. Better to say its figuative or metaphorical since the word means–figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things

What you have here is a contradiction. When something changes in substance it changes in appearance or in properties. If there is no change then nothing happened. So it is with eucharist. Simple bread and wine is being changed into the body and blood of our Savior.

From Alan J. Eddy:

If God can create the universe from nothing and can change water into wine, why would He not be able to change wine into His blood and bread into His body???

Christ’s peace.

You are using human logic and a small finite mind to comprehend a miracle from God. You are finite and God infinite. How it happens is unfathomable. But it is happening.

 

[justasking4]

You are using human logic and a small finite mind to comprehend a miracle from God. You are finite and God infinite. How it happens is unfathomable. But it is happening.

We both have a "small finite mind ". However what you don’t have is the evidence. If a miracle has truly taken place there will be proof.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I checked a Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words and it says that it is used of "metaphorically" of the habit of spiritually feeding on Christ and then makes reference to the passages in John 6. It definitely is not to be taken literally.

Vines is a protestant explanation of the King James Bible, a translation unauthorized by the CC, because it contains error due to the theological bias of the translators. They were used to serve the cause of Protestantism.

There are a number of things going in this passage that they had a very difficult time believing or accepting from Jesus. From the sense of the passage they knew what Jesus was saying but they could not accept it.

The eat my flesh and drink my blood being the most difficult.

JA4, I admire your persistence in seeking understanding. Keep coming back.

Blessed Christmas:harp:

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3118602]Vines is a protestant explanation of the King James Bible, a translation unauthorized by the CC, because it contains error due to the theological bias of the translators. They were used to serve the cause of Protestantism.

Not so. Look up this up in a greek lexicon by a catholic scholar and you should see essentially the same thing.

The eat my flesh and drink my blood being the most difficult.

JA4, I admire your persistence in seeking understanding. Keep coming back.

Same goes for many here as well.

Blessed Christmas:harp:

You to…

 

[alanjeddy]

We both have a "small finite mind ". However what you don’t have is the evidence. If a miracle has truly taken place there will be proof.

You are wrong. Go into Eucharistic miracles and they abound in many churches. The miracle of incorruptable human tissue is there for pilgrims to see. Many of these miracles took place centuries ago. There are documented cases of Alexandria a young woman who ate nothing but the Eucharist for 13 years no other food or water. Doctors even documented this and even tried to entice her with food.

Jesus is pure truth and He is God. With God all things are possible.

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3118713]
Originally Posted by justasking4
We both have a "small finite mind ". However what you don’t have is the evidence. If a miracle has truly taken place there will be proof.
alanjeddy
You are wrong. Go into Eucharistic miracles and they abound in many churches. The miracle of incorruptable human tissue is there for pilgrims to see. Many of these miracles took place centuries ago. There are documented cases of Alexandria a young woman who ate nothing but the Eucharist for 13 years no other food or water. Doctors even documented this and even tried to entice her with food.

The proof i’m referring to is an actual change in the structure of the bread and wine at mass. If something has changed as claimed then you would need to see evidence for it.

Jesus is pure truth and He is God. With God all things are possible.

Amen

 

[alanjeddy]

The proof i’m referring to is an actual change in the structure of the bread and wine at mass. If something has changed as claimed then you would need to see evidence for it.

Amen

DOUBTING THOMAS we walk by faith alone if Jesus says it is His body and blood you better believe Him. If God can raise Lazerus from the dead why couldn’t He change bread and wine into His body and blood and still have it taste like bread and wine??? How dare you think you can truly understand the immensity and unfathomabilty of of He who is pure truth. He who can not decieve or be decieved.

 

[po18guy]

DOUBTING THOMAS

Alan, I have given up on him. He has asked numerous times how you eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ, and has been told the same each time. I have no idea what he is doing here, unless sent by God to test our charity!

I offered a free book by Mark P. Shea on how an Evangelical discovered the Real Presence. He’s not interested. At this point, according to his own bible, I must treat him as a pagan or tax collector!

Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

A very merry Christmas and a Blessed new year.