Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who, [cough], took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.They understood Him to say that the bread and wine undergo a transubstantiation when the word "is" is used, leaving behind Aristotelian accidents?
No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who, [cough], took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.
I think that this comes from a misunderstanding. There are two ways I interpret this passage and I display them below:"...But he turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things...."I suppose you would also argue that the body of Peter was transubstantiated into Satan in this verse? Either Peter is literally Satan, or Jesus is lying... right?
Matthew 16:23 (NRSV)
What part of any of these Eucharistic passages that would make one think that Jesus is using a metaphor? Jesus establishes a solemn ritual where He says take and eat this is my Body. I just don't see anything in any of these passages that would lead one to think that He was not speaking literally. Especially in the passage by Paul in 1 Cor: [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.He is telling the truth by way of metaphor.
Neither. He knew what His blood is and what wine is and He knew that through the Power of God all things are possible even turning bread and wine into His own Body and Blood and yet allow the substance to keep the properties of the original substance.Either He didn't know the difference between blood & wine or He was using metaphor. Which is it?
I think mine was better.That was a pretty good "cornering manuever". How'd you like it being used on yourself?
So what is your point?Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But some don't come and believe.
v41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
v53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
How? Come to Him and believe on Him.
v57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Like Jesus.
v64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
But some believe not.
v69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
And some believe and are quickened by the Spirit, not flesh.
v63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Josiah said:They understood Him to say that the bread and wine undergo a transubstantiation when the word "is" is used, leaving behind Aristotelian accidents?
.
No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.
So what is your point?
What Jesus was defining His discourse was answering the Jews who where looking for Him to provide them with Manna. There is alot going on in Chapter 6. Alot. To shake it down to just a few verses out of context without a background of what the Jews where expecting out of their Messiah won't help. Regretfully this discussion is way outside the limits of this forum so all I can do is recommend a book:Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
The point was to contrast how Jesus defined in the beginning of the discourse what it means to eat and drink His flesh and blood with the carnal/literal understanding of those apart from that belief.
CJ, what about his usage of "under" and "in" in his catechisms?3. Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything. You are confusing Luther with your denomination.
4. Luther's use of the word "with" a very few times was his personal, non dogmatic manner of not denying what Jesus specifically and literally said and Paul by inspiration penned. Lutherans embrace Real Presence but not - as dogma - any limitations on such or medieval "scholastic" attempts to submit the view to long abandoned pagan theories and pre-science concepts. Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - nothing more, nothing less. We find no reason to dogmatically deny what Jesus said or Paul penned, and no reason to do so by embracing such pagan theories.
Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything.
What Jesus was defining His discourse was answering the Jews who where looking for Him to provide them with Manna. There is alot going on in Chapter 6. Alot. To shake it down to just a few verses out of context without a background of what the Jews where expecting out of their Messiah won't help. Regretfully this discussion is way outside the limits of this forum so all I can do is recommend a book:
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. One of the best books on the subject that I have read. Below is a link to the book at Amazon:
Amazon.com: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (9780385531849): Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: Books
He wasn't imposing a rule, he was exposing by example the convenience of your selective process between the literal & figurative.quote=MrPolo; The reason this line of thinking does not work against Catholicism is because we know that people are capable of speaking symbolically sometimes and literally in other times. (Although in your example, I believe there are exegetes who believe Jesus was literally addressing Satan influencing Peter's speech, but I digress since there are other examples that you could have used such as Jesus saying "I am the door" (Jn 10:9). It's hardly sensible to say that if Catholics believe Jesus to have been speaking literally in John 6 that they therefore cannot think Jesus is capable of speaking symbolically somewhere else. That makes no sense to impose that rule on the Catholic.
Very good. So do I.There are a variety of reasons why John 6 should be understood literally. Let me touch on one or two. In Catholic theology, we relate the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. This is called typology.
Sorry, I think you have mis-spoken. If I may interject, antetype means prototype or earlier form. I think what Paul identifies is the correlation of types in the narrow sense that all who were in Adam (all humanity) were affected consequentialy by his behavior, and the ones of those God elected to save (Eph1:4) He placed "in" Christ so those were likewise affected consequentialy by His behavior (Self-sacrifice).You see Paul speak of this in Romans 5 when he identifies Jesus as the superior antetype of Adam.
Sorry to interrupt, but if you mean Hebrews 8 speaks of Adam being an antetype of Jesus, I have to tell you it isn't anywhere mentioned in Hebrews 8 in the KJV. I haven't checked the Douay-Rheims.You see the author of Hebrews (ch 8) speak of this when he compared the sacrifices of the OT to the corresponding superior sacrifice of Christ.
Antitypes are opposite of type.You also see Jesus speak of this earlier in the John 6 discourse when he spoke of the bread that fell from heaven. One thing you will always see in the order of typology is that the New Testament antitypes are superior to their Old Testament types. Jesus is superior to Adam. Christ's sacrifice is superior to the OT sacrifices. And the bread of life in the NT is superior to the bread that fell from heaven in the form of manna.
Sorry to interrupt, but "just a" symbol is a marginalization I particularly avoid. First of all it is metaphor, not symbol, and the life-changing meaning of it is transformative. The loss of "superiority" is not percieved from my point of view since it is an addition as far as I can tell.Now, if we apply this "it's just a symbol" rationale to John 6, we cause a fatal problem in the order of theology.
"Just a symbol" is "superior" because it's origin doesn't matter & it feeds us spiritualy where manna did not.The NT "bread" suddenly becomes inferior to the OT manna. After all, the OT manna was 1) of supernatural origin and 2) of benefit for temporal life. When we insist the bread in John 6 is "just a symbol" we make it worse than the OT manna because we say its origin is less-than-supernatural and we deny that it is of benefit for eternal life. In other words, a symbol-only interpretation of the John 6 bread renders it the inferior type to the OT manna, which Christ made the typological comparison to in verses 49-51.
So do you.Secondly, the audience themselves understood Jesus literally. They walked away thinking he wanted them to eat his flesh.
That's just a guess. Unbelief was the reason they walked away. Unbelief literaly & unbelief figuratively.If, as the "symbol-only" folks argue, Jesus was speaking symbolically as he often did, then of course the reaction of the audience would have been: "Oh! He is speaking symbolically as he often does!" It makes zero sense for the audience to suddenly take him literally if he were speaking symbolically as he often did, and as his followers heard him speak before.
-snip-
Sorry to interrupt, but "just a" symbol is a marginalization I particularly avoid. First of all it is metaphor, not symbol, and the life-changing meaning of it is transformative. The loss of "superiority" is not percieved from my point of view since it is an addition as far as I can tell.-snip-
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. One of the best books on the subject that I have read. Below is a link to the book at Amazon:
Amazon.com: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (9780385531849): Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: Books
Succession.Reviewed a couple of reviews on it. How honest do we want to be? Truth in love. Let's see; from where did the idea arise that it takes a duly ordained priest (laity can't do it) to make the change in the bread/wine?
From Christ and His Apostles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?