Yes, every last one of them was a protestant advancing an agenda against Rome. The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don't want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That's just a fact, my friend.
"Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39."
Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one. They lived in the Hellenic culture of the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean. No matter how much you or protestant translators want "estin" to mean "represents" or "stands for", that simply isn't true. Estin means "is" just as "alithees" means true or real, not "kinda" or "sorta" like.
"Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?"
You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you? Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope. Some, Orthodox and Protestants do not. To the extent that a pope has declared that the bread and wine on the altar table is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that a local council of The Church declares the same thing, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that The Church lives out such a belief in its fullness as the People of God, the clergy and monastics and the hierarchs gathered together, then I believe and embrace it. That "ecclesia", which is no institution but rather the Body of Christ, is what is infallible.
“”The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don’t want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That’s just a fact, my friend.””
Saint Thomas Aquinas illustrates this so well referring to some of the great Church Fathers like Chrysostom ,Ambrose and Augustin
And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ’s Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the words, “Immediately there came out blood and water” (Jn. 19:34): “Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ’s own side.” Hence our Lord Himself says (Mat. 26:28): “This is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.”
Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): “This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.” And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): “When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him.” And hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.”
Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made,” viz. bread; “and many grapes flow into one thing,” viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!”
And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.-Summa Theologica
Wrong. Most CATHOLICS on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.
Being Catholic does not necessarily equate to being Christian and being Christian does not equate to being Catholic.
Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics. Called Christians....
Why did you quote the next line of my comment? It certainly would’ve given understanding to the above.
“Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.”
And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!
All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one.”
I didn't know.
“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language?”
One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker.
Every language mixes the literal and symbolic and makes postie, literal statements not meant to understood as such or shall I believe the nation of Babylon gave birth to men or the nation of Israel got drunk and puked?
If you can speak for “all Christians” please tell me how many gouged out an eye or chopped off an offending hand?
(Maybe Origen just with missed with the cleaver?)
“You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you?”
I just knew it was all my fault!
Papal infallibility is indeed a “notion” conjured from thin air-headed reasoning in way that would humble David
Copperfield.
“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”
The broad and specious road has plenty of room on it.