Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes

WorkofGod.org ^ | n/a | WorkofGod

[Uncle Chip]

The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times. The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics—the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible—is the literal meaning of the text.....

The creative literalness of the words: “This is my body; this is my blood” must be believed.

Creative literalness?? Is that one of those fundamental principles of hermeneutics???

According to those fundamental principles, by the word "This" Jesus meant the bread that He was holding in His hands right there at that moment -- no more and no less -- not the bread that others would hold in remembrance of this occasion at other and later places and times.

"This" bread in His hands in front of Him at that moment means "This" bread in His hands in front of Him at that moment, no more no less, unless you think that by "This" He meant something other than "This", in which case there goes your fundamental principle of a literal hermeneutic.

[Uncle Chip]

Jn 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

No -- the literal meaning of these words here in John 6 would and could not mean that at all, if that is your argument, because the Apostles did not literally do so. Clearly the Jews and the Apostles took these words literally and it deeply bothered them. It no doubt bothered them for the next ten chapters and Jesus kept them all in suspense as to what exactly He meant by those words -- and it wasn't literal, was it??? When Jesus took the bread and said "this is my body" He was setting their minds at ease regarding those words in chapter 6. He had been speaking figuratively -- right?

[MarkBsnr]

Well hello, Uncle Chip. Haven’t run across you in a while. Hope everything’s okay with you.

“Now that Jesus is in heaven in His resurrected body sitting on the throne on the right side of His Father, just exactly which body do you claim to be receiving in that wafer at Mass: the new glorious body that His Father gave Him at His Resurrection that is sitting next to His Father, or the old one that He had at the Last Supper, that was sacrificed on the cross, laid in the grave, and that He doesn’t have anymore?? Can you answer that one for us all out here in the real world ???”

That is an excellent question.

I would answer it with current body. Is that real enough?

[MarkBsnr]

The earliest Christians believed it; their true descendents believe it to this day. This bread is His Body. I accept the faith of the Fathers.

The Reformation brought about the great effort to get rid of the Real Presence doctrine, led by Zwingli. Calvin actually was less extreme than Zwingli here. Zwingli in 1527 led the first major redefinition of the doctrine to include the term signify.

[MarkBsnr]

No, I don’t think so.

The Body of Christ is contained within the bread. The Blood is contained within the wine. He was speaking literally.

[Uncle Chip]

Yes -- it has been a while. I hope everything is well with you.

And Yes, it is a tough question but one that has to be dealt with. Jesus did not give His current glorified body for the sins of the world. He gave the other one He had at the time of the Crucifixion -- the one that He has no more. His old body was to be sacrificed [broken] for the sins of the world, not His new glorified resurrected one.

Do you recall any of the church fathers who believed in the Real Presence wrestling with this issue???

[Uncle Chip]

The Body of Christ is contained within the bread. The Blood is contained within the wine. He was speaking literally.

But here is Paul in I Cor 11:23-29:

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes."

If Jesus was in the bread and in the wine, then He had already come, and would have been coming on a regular basis, unless of course, Jesus was not in the bread and in the wine, but still sitting at His Father's right hand until the time of His second coming. So which was/is it?

[Rutles4Ever]

It has been a long standing doctrine of Rome that the Roman church and pope of Rome are the supreme rulers of both the ecclesiastical realm as well as the temporal realm.

If that's the case, your bone to pick is with Christ Himself for "foolishly" giving Peter the, um, KEYS to the kingdom of Heaven. If it's an either/or with you, then you need to hang your hat on the words of Paul or the words of Christ, take your pick. If you believe that Scripture cannot contradict itself, then there has to be a relationship between Paul's words and Christ's words which demonstrate correctness in both statements. That's the problem with relying on a black-and-white approach to the Gospel. You read it like it came off an IBM supercomputer, and not imbued with a specific intent of a human author inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[Rutles4Ever]

Now that Jesus is in heaven in His resurrected body sitting on the throne on the right side of His Father, just exactly which body do you claim to be receiving in that wafer at Mass: the new glorious body that His Father gave Him at His Resurrection that is sitting next to His Father, or the old one that He had at the Last Supper, that was sacrificed on the cross, laid in the grave, and that He doesn't have anymore?? Can you answer that one for us all out here in the real world ???

The difficult leap of our logic as humans is found in our being restricted by Time (not the magazine). If Jesus' resurrected body is sitting on the throne at the right side of His Father (which we agree is true), then who is the Lamb standing slain in Revelation? If Jesus is the Lamb of God (which we both agree), then how can He at once be seated next to God, and presented to God as the Paschal sacrifice? Because all things are present to God in eternity. Thus, in lieu of the animal sacrifice of the Temple, Christ gave Himself as the lamb. Since Christ explicitly did not abolish, but fulfilled the Law, we are still required to present to God the sacrifice as atonement for our sins - in this case, it is the Son Himself.

Now, since one cannot re-crucify the flesh and blood of Christ over and over again, since He is now glorified and ascended to the Father, Christ left for us at the Last Supper the sacrament and gift of the Holy Eucharist. As we present to God the consecrated bread and wine, God sees not the bread and wine, but His Son raised on the Cross. It is thus not a symbolic translation - God cannot be tricked into believing that it's the true body and blood of Christ if it weren't so.

Thus there is no re-crucifying of Christ, but the re-presentation of the sacrifice to the Father. Does the Father need to see this sacrifice again and again from our hands? No. God needs nothing. He sees all things present, past, and future in a single instant. But He does demand it ("Do this in memory of Me") as He demanded the sacrifice of a lamb He didn't "need" under the Old Law.

That brings us to the problem with viewing things in a simply linear chronological fashion. What takes place on the altar is indeed supernatural. It goes beyond our own perception of time and place. It goes beyond our perception of a piece of bread as just a piece of bread. We believe it to be the body and blood of Christ because Christ commanded us to. We are indeed present with the angels, presenting to God and worshiping the Lamb which stands slain in Revelation. And yet, there is Christ, seated in all His glory at one and the same moment.

There are certain things that we will never humanly grasp. First and foremost is that God took on the flesh and became man. If one can believe that, then it seems to me much less problematic to believe that by repeating the words of Christ as taught in the upper room, the bread and wine both become the body and blood of our Lord. This is what He told us to do. We trust and believe His words.

[MarkBsnr]

I don’t recall seeing much in the way of disquiet or discussion regarding this doctrine amongst the Church Fathers. It really wasn’t until the first millennium that this started to be disputed.

New Advent says that:

Suffice it to say that, besides the Didache (ix, x, xiv), the most ancient Fathers, as Ignatius (Ad. Smyrn., vii; Ad. Ephes., xx; Ad. Philad., iv), Justin (Apol., I, lxvi), Irenæus (Adv. Hær., IV, xvii, 5; IV, xviii, 4; V, ii, 2), Tertullian (De resurrect. carn., viii; De pudic., ix; De orat., xix; De bapt., xvi), and Cyprian (De orat. dom., xviii; De lapsis, xvi), attest without the slightest shadow of a misunderstanding what is the faith of the Church.

We can look at the doctrine of Transubstatation in terms of multilocation of Christ in both Heaven and in uncounted numbers of places upon Earth.

The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is confined to a determinate portion of space in such wise that its various parts (atoms, molecules, electrons) also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. The second mode of presence, that properly belonging to a spiritual being, requires the substance of a thing to exist in its entirety in the whole of the space, as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. The latter is the soul’s mode of presence in the human body. The distinction made between these two modes of presence is important, inasmuch as in the Eucharist both kinds are found in combination. For, in the first place, there is verified a continuous definitive multilocation, called also replication, which consists in this, that the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. And precisely this latter analogy from nature gives us an insight into the possibility of the Eucharistic miracle. For if, as has been seen above, Divine omnipotence can in a supernatural manner impart to a body such a spiritual, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence, which is natural to the soul as regards the human body, one may well surmise the possibility of Christ’s Eucharistic Body being present in its entirety in the whole Host, and whole and entire in each part thereof.

There is, moreover, the discontinuous multilocation, whereby Christ is present not only in one Host, but in numberless separate Hosts, whether in the ciborium or upon all the altars throughout the world. The intrinsic possibility of discontinuous multilocation seems to be based upon the non-repugnance of continuous multilocation. For the chief difficulty of the latter appears to be that the same Christ is present in two different parts, A and B, of the continuous Host, it being immaterial whether we consider the distant parts A and B joined by the continuous line AB or not. The marvel does not substantially increase, if by reason of the breaking of the Host, the two parts A and B are now completely separated from each other. Nor does it matter how great the distance between the parts may be. Whether or not the fragments of a Host are distant one inch or a thousand miles from one another is altogether immaterial in this consideration; we need not wonder, then, if Catholics adore their Eucharistic Lord at one and the same time in New York, London, and Paris. Finally, mention must be made of mixed multilocation, since Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world. This third case would be in perfect accordance with the two foregoing, were we per impossible permitted to imagine that Christ were present under the appearances of bread exactly as He is in heaven and that He had relinquished His natural mode of existence. This, however, would be but one more marvel of God’s omnipotence. Hence no contradiction is noticeable in the fact, that Christ retains His natural dimensional relations in heaven and at the same time takes up His abode upon the altars of earth.

There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in the Eucharist, but would be, if Christ’s Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said.to him: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

We take this all to mean that Jesus is present in the Eucharist as well as in Heaven; His coming again is at the end times and is regardes as different than the ongoing Sacrament that helps to sustain us spiritually through our lives.

[Uncle Chip]

If Jesus' resurrected body is sitting on the throne at the right side of His Father (which we agree is true), then who is the Lamb standing slain in Revelation? If Jesus is the Lamb of God (which we both agree), then how can He at once be seated next to God, and presented to God as the Paschal sacrifice?

They are one and the same. He's just standing at this time [after sitting next to His Father for 2000 years] in order to receive the scroll from His Father who is sitting alone on the throne at this time.

[Rutles4Ever]

They are one and the same. He's just standing at this time [after sitting next to His Father for 2000 years] in order to receive the scroll from His Father who is sitting alone on the throne at this time.

"At this time"? There's no time in eternity.

Why doesn't He just receive the scroll in His glorified body and not in the person of the Lamb slain? When the Lamb slain receives the scroll, the glorified Jesus doesn't exist? If He's already glorified, why does He need to be transformed into something He was 2000 years earlier? The reason is, He isn't transformed. He is at once, in the eyes of the Father, the glorified Jesus Christ and the Lamb slain because the Father sees Him as both crucified, glorified, and even as an infant in the womb of Mary:

Revelation 12:4,5

"And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;

she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne..."

Thus, God is still witnessing the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of Our Lord. By re-presenting Him in the Eucharist, we are participating in God's eternal vision, and this is not of our own doing, but Jesus' command to us. As we are not re-crucifying Jesus, neither is the Father.

[Uncle Chip]

There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in the Eucharist, but would be, if Christ’s Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said to him: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

But Christ did not leave heaven to do this. Scripture says that a great light shone from heaven and Paul heard a voice. It was not "in person".

[Uncle Chip]

There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in the Eucharist, but would be, if Christ’s Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said to him: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

But Christ did not leave heaven to do this. Scripture says that a great light shone from heaven and Paul heard a voice. It was not "in person".

[MarkBsnr]

Very true.

Some Bible translations have language that lead one to think that Jesus was physically there. The NAB does not:

Acts
Chapter 9
1
1 Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2
and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, 2 he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.
3
On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.
4
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
5
He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
6
Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”
7
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

---

So we might not need the fourth type whatsoever. Very astute.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

O come on, now... that one’s easy... He used the singular form of the verb because he was talking to Peter, not the 12.... but he also gave the authority collectively to the 12 a few chapters later. The point is that you can’t give ultimate authority to multiple people, so each bishop (heirs of the apostles) has authority on his own in his own jurisdiction, and they have collective authority as a body to which Peter is first among equals.

Not according to the early church fathers, as I have cited already.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

No, I am not playing the victim.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

It is you who are speaking falsehoods.

Odd, I have cited early church fathers who contradict Rome's assertion of a Roman papal primacy. Take it up with them.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Eating real, actual, literal flesh of Christ and drinking real, actual, literal blood of Christ would be a violation of the Law against eating human flesh and drinking blood. Which is precisely the argument that Athenagorus and Justin Maryr used when refuting the early charges that the early Christians were eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

The creative literalness of the words

Creative literalness??

Yes, that "creative literalness" allows Rome to redefine things when it suits the present agenda.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

It has been a long standing doctrine of Rome that the Roman church and pope of Rome are the supreme rulers of both the ecclesiastical realm as well as the temporal realm.

If that's the case, your bone to pick is with Christ Himself for "foolishly" giving Peter the, um, KEYS to the kingdom of Heaven.

But Christ did not give the "keys" exclusively to Peter, and the early church fathers, you know, "tradition" did not believe that later assertion by Rome either, as I have already cited.

So much for the "unanimous consent of the fathers".