Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

CCDictionary ^ | 04-16-14 | from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

[Springfield Reformer]

Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.

Ad hominem again? Is this really all you have?

When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.

No doubt there is a connection. What made you think we do not associate Satan with lies? We do, because we believe in the words of Jesus, that Satan is the father of lies. If after hearing this you continue to represent that we make no such connection, you do willfully misrepresent us, and that would be true and provable prevarication, because we have told you the truth about this (and everything else). Yet you do not believe us.

Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments

Oh pfiffle. You are serious? You really think this conversation can bear such trivial, nonsensical sniping? What if "non-argument" were colloquial for "invalid argument"? Indeed, I though to say it, but determined you were too intelligent to miss the synonymous effect, and yet here you use this basketful of nothing to swing at someone who sincerely wishes to take you seriously. Triple sigh ...

Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.

Indeed, for by such a device, you avoid actual engagement of ideas, and I fully understand why you wish to bypass that. (Note to reader: Please tally the substantive arguments in this entire thread and who made them, and see if I am not correct.)

My uncle was a brilliant man. He did advanced math modeling for the government, a full blown genius. Yet he was also a man of grace, and any intellect, however humble, could approach him at any level and he was glad to teach them.

This was a reflection of his deep faith in Jesus, and his modeling of the humility of Jesus, who while He dealt harshly with the self-righteous and proud, He rather gave (and still gives) grace and blessing to the humble.

So if you wish to cut me off for my intellectual inadequacies, you do what you think is right. I will still have Jesus to be my Teacher, and that is enough for me.

God bless you and yours,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

No, that is not at all what happened. Finding Christ in the Eucharist and kneeling before Him was a complete surprise that did not match any prior experience.

So now you disclaim volition? You made no decision to become a Christian? You just woke up one day and you *were* one?

rather than seeking what part of the faith to amputate

Here you attribute motive where you have no evidence of the same. As we have discussed before, every Scripture you have presented as an alleged proof text for a uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is able to be read under normal Protestant interpretation. No amputation is necessary, nor is any such thing desired. You wrong us to say we have such evil intent. I promise you we do not.

For example, regarding the Eucharist, no human authority, other than ordinary God-given reason, is necessary to read a word in its ordinary meaning and context. The passage you cite does not occur in a vacuum. but on the heels of miraculously feeding the multitudes. It is in that setting that Jesus begins to redirect their attention from mere physical food to spiritual food, by the most striking and seemingly impossible language:

John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

How do we know this is spiritual food and NOT corporeal? Because Jesus, the only authority needed for this question, clearly says so:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

This teaching, directly from the inspired word of God, is contrary to the bizarre and late-appearing novelty doctrine of transubstantiation. To accept transubstantiation is to amputate the logical exclusion Jesus is creating here, as he not only says he should be understood spiritually, but He specifically excludes corporeality as part of the answer. So there can be no clever synthesis, not part spiritual and part corporeal, no Aristotelian game of accidents and substance, both of which are mere excuses for retaining corporeality where Jesus specifically excluded it.

How then could this be done, this eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, if not in some corporeal way? This is exactly the same point of confusion experienced by His audience in those moments when he first said these words. Yet this confusion is inexcusable, because Jesus had already established how, by spiritual means, we may find life in him:

John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

Could it really be that simple? Believing in Him? Impossible. There must be something more to it. Yet coming to belief in Jesus is no small thing, for earlier in the same passage, Jesus has said it is not possible to believe in Him without being drawn to Him by God Himself:

John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

But what about when He says, This is my body, this is my blood? (Matthew 26:26,28 et al). Again, no greater authority is needed than the common sense God gave us all:

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

When Jesus says he is the door, does he invoke Aristotelian categories of accidence and substance? Or would any ordinary reader understand his words as figurative? Wouldn’t throwing transubstantiation in here be ludicrous? Yes, it would. Just as it would be in Matthew 26:26 & 28.

Instead, it now becomes clear that “eime”, the verb of being (“to be”), can have legitimate figurative use, which no less an authority that Jesus Himself has demonstrated by example.

For another excellent example, look at Matthew 13:38:

“The field (’agros’) is (’estin’) the world (’kosmos’); the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;”

Estin is the same word (“to be”) in the same form (“is”) as the passage in Matthew 26:26 & 28.

This is a particularly good case, because it is impossible to take the subject of the analogy as literal; it is a parable, by definition establishing a figurative or symbolic relationship between the analogue and the underlying reality it describes.

To put a finer point on it, Jesus cannot here be teaching that one literal farmer’s field really is the entirety of the world. The farm field can only be a representation because it lacks all the literal the attributes of the kosmos as a whole. It is merely a tool used to teach the disciples about the spiritual dimension to Gospel evangelism. Jesus selected a part of the kosmos to represent the whole, and said part was chosen for its ability to teach, not because it had some Dr. Who Tardis-like capacity to fully contain the reality of the kosmos.

And various key fathers also testify to this figurative sense:

But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 9.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm for full context.

Is Augustine a teacher of death? Should you also run away from him? But what does he say it is to confuse the sign for the thing it signifies? Weakness.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 40

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm for full context

Is Tertullian outside the camp as well? I should hope not. And there are many others. But it is late and I have to wrap this up for now.

So I’m asking you, with all sincerity, please reconsider your position. Protestants came by this figurative sense of the Eucharist honestly, from ancient and reliable sources. We didn’t invent it, and we were definitely not the first to have this understanding concerning the Eucharist. Its figurative quality emerges very naturally from the teaching of Jesus Himself, our mutually agreed highest authority, and does not at all diminish what He has done for us, but rather magnifies it to the greatest glory.

It grieves me to think we have so much in common, and yet must part ways on this, all because Trent anathematized dissent from the Aristotelian alchemy of Aquinas, a formulation that has no basis in Scripture, nor in any of the early fathers, but is actually refuted by the same. Real sigh …

[daniel1212]

Any decision at some point becomes internalized and in that sense private; however the reasons for the Catholic faith are very well known and in fact I enumerated the principal ones.

I read your testimony, and i have mine, as one raised devout RC, but who later became manifestly born again thru tearful repentance and faith in Christ to save, and realized the profound difference in heart and life, and btwn what happened to me versus my fellow Catholics.

And yet i remained for 6 years, going weekly and holy days to Mass as a Eucharist-believing RC, and served as a lector and CCD teacher, while also seeking life in RC charismatic meetings (which were better). But who quickly found evangelical radio as feeding my very hungry soul, seeking to know how to please God from the Scriptures.

And finally, and more due to spiritual deadness in the RC church (and i went to more than my own parish sometimes) and desire for evangelical fellowship more than doctrinal differences (though i saw some), i humbly prayed to God if perhaps He would have me go to another church (I knew of none i thought i could trust) then He would make it known. And which He manifestly answered the next day, and which decision He only confirmed in the years since.

Nor do i harbor personal resentment against Rome, but contend against it which i do against other errors, from Swedenborg" to Islam .

And as i can examine Scripture objectively, so i have changed some of my views, if not salvific ones, and likely read more Catholic teaching than most RCs. But this is contrary to the cultic devotion of such RCs i see contending her, and exampled in the incredible things they wrest out of Scripture, which devotion driven extrapolations are actually an argument again being an RC.

[daniel1212]

We don't know who is and is not saved, for we are saved by our works and the intention of imitating Christ that accompany them. But as a general rule, a direct denial of words of the Gospel destroys your souls, yes.

You can invoke the ignorant clause, but basically you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist. And thus there is contradiction btwn your statement that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation, and the affirmation of V2 that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them.

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal.

They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood... - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium; solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995" "All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith....These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation...This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit. It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the forces of evil which divide humanity. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

And insisting Jn. 53,54 compels one to be Catholic is absurd, for as briefly shown here , it requires more eisegesis that is contrary to the figurative use of eating and drinking and the means by which one gains spiritual and eternal life in Scripture.

If they have the Holy Spirit who works in and thru them then they are children of God now, without believing in or consuming the Eucharist. And even this possession of life within them is impossible if Jn. 6:53 is taken literally,

Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.

RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium

Engaging in imaginary semantic distinctions will not gain you any points, and avoids the reasoning (below) behind RCs being driven to interpret this and other Divinely inspired texts as supporting Rome.

But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture

You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?

It seems like you are avoiding the "what," that of the reasoning behind interpreting a promise of a persevering church and of God's presence to mean that of a perpetual infallible magisterium, versus the normal corporate meaning of church, that of the body of Christ, founded upon Christ, as seen understood among CFs, and the Lord's presence being that of the giving of the Spirit upon all believers.

That this must necessitate a perpetual infallible magisterium is a premise which simply is not Scriptural. If you think it is, then defend it, rather than just asserting your interpretation must be correct. Which itself is based upon the premise that Rome cannot be wrong, as being the fulfillment of the perpetual infallible magisterium you see promised in Scripture, but which is driven by a the conclusion it seeks to defend, as in fact Scripture is not even determinative for an RC, and his basis for assurance.

while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.

The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.

It seems you are back to your prior assertion the doctors and prelates speak Divinely inspired words on faith and morals, which makes you more Catholic than Catholic scholastic sources.

In any case, it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC." despite their attempt to use it to support teachings which are basis upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution

First, it is a matter of debate even among RCs as to whether "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" means the authority of Hell attacking the church, or that of the church overcoming the powers of Hell to rescue souls whose destination is Hell.

In either case, the church is the body of Christ, consisting of all who possesses His Spirit, and which Rome herself acknowledges others as having beyond the Catholic church. It is the "one new man" fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God," who "have access by one Spirit unto the Father" and are "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," and to whom Christ is married. (Eph. 2:18,19,22; 5:25) This is the only body that is only made up of believers, and it is thus attacked by the powers of Hell, thus believes are exhorted, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." (Hebrews 13:3)

For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope, with it alone being what is engaged in war with the invisible powers of darkness. Yet it is the organized church that has often attacked those who belong to the body of Christ, even using the sword of men, thus being an instrument of the devil. Thus the organized church of Rome alone or any other cannot be the church the Lord refers to her.

While the body of Christ has its visible manifestations, the war btwn the powers of Hell vs the church are not restricted to one organized church, as the body is not restricted to that. Yet the devil can attack one or more organized churches in particular, even using them to do so, but none epresent the whole body.

Moreover, while the early diverse church had a basic if not comprehensive unity under manifestly true apostles, these apostles and the NT church stand in significant and critical contrast to that of Rome, and its limited unity is largely organizational and largely on paper, and exists in divisions. And she overall lacks the essential unity of the Spirit that is the result of a shared conversion and abiding relationship with Christ, which is greater than the differences among those walking therein, and transcends tribal differences. Due to this and a common contention for core truths, evangelicals have been treated as the greatest threats by both Rome and liberals, and are overall more unified in core beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.

What you think must done and what must be done are two different things. The promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome the entity called the church is not a promise to individuals under my definition, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...For the body is not one member, but many." (1 Corinthians 12:13,14) despite your attempt to make it so, but it is to a corporate body which only consists of true born again believers. That is what the powers of hell wars with, including thru the organized church, though it wars with individual believers and churches as well.

The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.

I shake my head in amazement of what an RC can wrest out of Scripture as needed to support Rome when it simply is not there, and is why the real basis for your assurance of Truth, which cannot be the weight of Scriptural evidence, was my focus .

Here you a least seem to have church built on "the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter," (CCC 424) but which by extension makes the object of that faith, Christ, the Rock upon which the church is built, which interpretation of the Rock is the only one that the rest of Scripture attests to, abundantly.

Then you have the keys somehow translating into the infallible, invincible Church, and that Peter (uniquely supremely) can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven!

Such careless wanton extrapolation renders Scripture to be a servant to support Rome, and is not what it teaches in the light of the rest of it. What is abundantly manifest is that the "keys" to the kingdom is that of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation," as by faith in it believers are translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) whether they heard of Peter or not. Phillip preached Christ out of Is. 53 for salvation, not Peter, being sent by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:26-38)

And what the NT revelation shows is never that of Peter reigning over the church corporate as its supreme infallible head, and in fact not once in all the NT is he shown doing so, nor even in the church epistles or in the Lord's critique of the churches in Rv. 2,3 is submission to Peter as this head ever exhorted or made an issue, even as a solution to problems, nor any lack thereof faulted,

While Peter was a Spirit-filled miracle-working preacher and the street-level leader among many apostles, and who exercised a general pastoral role, (1Pt. 1:1) yet he who never claimed to be anything more than "a servant," "an apostle," "an elder," (2Pt. 1:1; 1Pt. 5:1) nor is he described as being more than one of the pillars, with James being listed first. (Gal. 2:9)

It is Peter who provides briefly key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel of justification by faith, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism, but an obedient faith first formally expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) And briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done.

Yet the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul, who preached Christ as being the Son of God immediately after his conversion and the laying on hands by "a certain disciple, Ananais. (Acts 9:10-20) Yet who theologically received the gospel of grace by direct revelation. (Gal. 1:12)

Only after 3 years does he meet specifically with the eyewitness-leader Peter, and he also sees James, (Gal. 1:18,19) and then goes about preaching for 14 years before presenting his message as a matter of course to "them which were of reputation," "who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person), "who seemed to be pillars." (Galatians 2:2,6.9)

All of which upholds the principle of leadership and accountability to such, yet not as providing apostleship or infallibly determining authenticity, but confirming what was already possessed. Nor does the language there does not supports the status afforded the Roman papacy, directing all souls to look to Peter as its exalted head.

While the Roman pope stands above all other bishops in both actions, dress and ascribed powers, Paul presents Peter as just one of them to appeared to be pillars, and does not even list Peter first among the three, but second, and makes it clear it made no difference to him what they seemed to be, as God looks at the heart and sees what men in position really are. And in proceeding paragraphs Paul is sure to include how otherwise holy Peter acted hypocritically, and was thus rebuked publicly.

Apologist Steve Hays also writes of just a few of the intervening steps of what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18: a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.” b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter. c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.” d) This office is “perpetual” e) Peter resided in “Rome” f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome h) There was only “one” bishop at a time i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.” j) Peter “ordained” a successor k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor. l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day. Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .

As it is obviously that the RC assertions of what Mt. 16:18 and other texts teach are driven by the premise that the only interpretation of what Scripture is and means is that of Rome, thus the premise that is behind the reasoning that a perpetual infallible magisterium is necessary and that Rome is that magisterium remains the issue.

Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that... I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it.

What you prefer does not line up with Scripture and the Christ who knew what he was doing in showing Peter to be radically different than the Roman papacy, thus the RC Jesus is one who did not know what He was doing thru Scripture, and thus needed to make the Roman church has supreme over Scripture, and found forgeries and fables helpful as Scripture manifestly fails to support the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy and church, which Rome "infallibly" declares herself to be.

Instead of the RC idea, the Lord knew what "rock" conveyed, and who the real Rock was, and made a distinction btwn what the rock-Peter said and the One whom he confessed, which rock name he was act in conformity with, but a distinction which the Lord quickly made in calling Peter a satan. Which type of thing is just one more piece of evidence that Rome did not write the Bible to support her, despite what Islam imagines.

Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.

Simply in-credible! Somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of this poor, married leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination , that Peter was the exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome! Which neither Scripture nor history supports.

Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to...

Is to engage in straw men or read whatever is necessary into Scripture to support Rome as if she were God.

That the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter

Which is another example wresting texts. This is not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes, which is seen in the government and jurisprudence of the Old Testament, (Dt. 1:13-17) which the writers so often hearken back to. And which in NT application was not that of the apostles in Jerusalem, but the apostle Paul writes, “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” (1 Corinthians 6:4)

And the principle of binding here goes beyond disfellowship, but also relates to healing. And while elders (not men distinctively titled "priests") normally are the ones called in to intercede, (Ja. 514,15) in Mt. 18:15-20 the principle of binding here is not simply addressed to the apostles, but "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:19-20) Thus the promise, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)

that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter.

As said, the level of attestation must correspond to the claims made, and Rome esp. utterly fails to manifest the manner of power purity and signs of an apostles, while claiming perpetual assured infallibility, which the apostles did not claim, but persuaded souls by "manifestation of the Truth," "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4ff) "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20) Rome makes a mockery of this corespondent authority and Scriptural regeneration and the church of the living, not institutionalized God, as per Rome and liberal Prot churches (which tend to be more like Rome).

However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility. As Rome claims this of her popes and bishops, while failing of the apostolic qualifications and attestation, she has automatically distinguished herself from that of Scripture.

Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.

Stop engaging in soliloquy, or resorting to spitballs, and dare to take off your Roman glasses and objectively search the Scripture to determine the veracity of Roman teaching. But which you are not to do, and thus why ague Scripture with RCs when the foundational issue is that of implicit assent to Rome based upon the a priori premise of her assured infallibility, the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?

[daniel1212]

Did He quote from the New Testament?

Irrelevant, as these writings were established upon the same basis as OT ones were, which was not via an infallible magisterium.

An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.

The problem with "You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things," as referring to wresting “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, and as regards "what constitutes official and even infallible teaching," is that it is a bare assertion, an unsubstantiated charge presented as fact.

And thus your conclusion is begging the question, and makes a conclusive assertion as a substituted for an actual argument that serves to substantiate the conclusive assertion.

And which amounts to charging that i am in a circumstance that compels my position, which can be warranted, but is unsubstantiated. And my remark was written to a follow evangelical who has seen of what i speak, and which i can substantiate it, if you care to actually debate it.

I was using ad hominem loosely to refer to an unsubstantiated personal attack in lieu of an argument, but it may be helpful to consider the the RM (who must sometimes be a hard judging job) definition of ad hominems (though i did not flag you and rarely do invoke the RM for such)

Ad Hominems

The main guideline to posting on the Religion Forum: ”Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”

Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.

For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally....

Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal....

The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent. >

If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.

Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.

That is simply example another sophist tactic that avoids dealing with what refutes Rome, as these questions deal with the foundational premise behind RC claims. You simply are calling things false but do not substantiate them. But it is best for you to avoid dealing with these issues.

[daniel1212]

On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument.

But when a Roman has spoken, is not the matter settled?:)

[Springfield Reformer]

Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.

I know you have moved on, and that's fine, but I thought you would like to know that I researched this issue of non-argument versus invalid argument, and I now agree with you. It was a colloquialism to me, but a formal logician's perspective would necessarily be that the two are distinct, though I have read some who suggest that a non sequitur can occur as either a non-argument or an invalid argument. So the boundaries are not always pristine.

In any event, as one who claims to understand formal logic, you must also recognize it is fallacious to dismiss an argument by shifting the focus to an error of the presenter in an unrelated subject matter. It's just another form of abusive ad hominem.

So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack, I would be glad to reengage. We'll leave the light on for ya.

Peace,

SR

[annalex]

... ad hominem. You woo us with insults?

Nothing personal. It is a common feature of Protestants that they argue for their illusions by bypassing, skipping through and generally ignoring the parts of the Holy Scripture that do not fit their templates. Neither would I describe evangelization as "wooing". I am under an obligation to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever" Christ commanded the Church. Note that: "all things". Not some things you indeed observe, but all things that the Catholic Church observes. Therefore, I repeat, read the Holy Scripture because God really, really, means what He says.

[annalex]

now you disclaim volition? You made no decision to become a Christian?

Last part first, I became Christian when I received baptism; I was about one year of age. Of course as an adult I took a conscious and considered decision to seek full Communion with the Holy Catholic Church; I spent about a year sitting in church, like a good sheep, and another half a year in various forms and stages of Catechism. Christ once compared faith to a seed becoming a tree, and that is exactly was was happening since baptism and, glory be to God, will continue to happen till God takes me.

you attribute motive where you have no evidence of the same. [...] You wrong us to say we have such evil intent.

Surely, I cannot speak to everyone's intent, and indeed I gave my advice conditionally: "If any Protestant". But the pattern is common to all Protestantism. On fundamentals of faith: the nature of the Eucharist, the structure of the Church, the role of acquired virtue in salvation, -- we take the scripture on its direct face value. Christ said "this is my body" so we believe it is His body. Christ next said "do it", so we have priests who "do it". Christ said: "thou art Rock and I will build my Church on thee" and we have the papacy; the apostle said "you are not saved on faith alone" and we anathemize the view that we are saved by faith alone. Christ said "forgive them their sins" and we have confessions to priests. That is when it is written, we read what is written. It would be good for the Protestants to worry less what the Catholics do that is outside of the scope of the scripture and instead turn to their own errors that are firmly in contradiction to the scripture.

Jesus begins to redirect their attention from mere physical food to spiritual food

First, I am sure we agree that (1) the food of the miracle of the fishes and loaves was physical food; (2) the body of Christ that was on the Cross and ascended is physical body; that (3) the entirety of Christian religion pertains to matters spiritual; faith for example is a spiritual phenomenon; that finally (4) we live in the world that is both spiritual and physical. I say these rather evident things because you say "Christ redirects". That is a false dichotomy. The loaves were physical but built the spirit; Christ was incarnate but built the spirit. So if you mean to tell me that the Eucharist is spiritual and therefore is not the real body of Christ you are building a non-sequitur. The argument is not about that, but about the real presence of Christ with the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, which is to our taste and to our laboratory equipment is bread and wine, and is physically eaten and drunken as bread and wine would be, and then has a spiritual effect on us.

In that light, let us examine the Miracle of the Loaves. They ate physical food and were satisfied, and despite the satisfaction gathered up the remnants, because -- I don't see another reason, -- they revered them as miraculous. When there is a miracle, there is spirit working the miracle. Further, a physical object limited to one lunch basket became available to great many people. From that it follows that Christ worked the miracle of the loaves not to teach a contrast to the Eucharist, but rather in order to prepare for this difficult concept of one His body being in the mouths of great many. A contrast is drawn in the discourse, but not with the Loaves and Fishes; the contrast is with the manna from heaven and by extension the non-salvific nature of Jewish faith.

In general, the parables and miracles of Christ were given in order to teach and to prepare; not in order to foster an error and then correct that error. He means what He says. If Christ wanted to teach Protestant concept of Eucharist as a symbol and eating it as a metaphor of ingesting faith he would not give people real loaves and then spend the rest of the chapter speaking of "food indeed", and cause apostasy of some, who "walked no more with Him" over it.

the logical exclusion Jesus is creating here, as he not only says he should be understood spiritually, but He specifically excludes corporeality as part of the answer

This is not an exclusion but a clarification: the food in the baskets was physical food from which your stomach profited; the Eucharist is physical food from which your spirit profits, and the stomach does not profit. Compare in 1 Corinthians 11, "have you not houses to eat and to drink in?". With the emphasis on the physicality of the Eucharist as his physical body ("ο τρωγων μου την σαρκα", -- note the vocabulary), and with the promise of eternal life from the Eucharist alone, Christ did not want people to stop eating any other food whatsoever.

When Jesus says he is the door, does he invoke Aristotelian categories of accidence and substance?

He did not "invoke categories" in John 6 either, he simply said what He also said at the Last Supper, "this is my body". The philosophical superstructure of transubstantiation is there to explain the fact of the real presence, not the fact itself. At any rate, of course the Gospels are filled with allegory. Jesus the Door is obviously an allegory: you cannot enter the Church but through Jesus just as you cannot enter any building but through the door. He also said He is the vine. He did not tell the disciples to do something symbolic with doors and vine in His memory. Everyone understood Him in both cases as being allegorical; no one raised any controversy. But in John 6, Christ's speech was insistent on the Eucharist being "food indeed", and the people that were present understood Him literally. Indeed St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 speaks of the Eucharist containing the body of Christ that ought to be discerned, shows the death of Christ and is capable of condemnation (1 Cor. 11:26-30); all these things cannot be said of some symbol or allegory.

It does not follow that since in some places the Bible has an allegory, like "door", "vine", "field", "seed" pointing to spiritual realities, then everything you don't like in it is also an allegory. That body on the Cross surely wasn't allegorical, was it?

Tertullian outside the camp as well?

Tertullian as a whole is not to be taken for granted: he fell to heresy, was never sainted by the Church; St. Augustine is not inerrant either. But in these passages nothing heretical is even alleged: any sacrament is a sign and it is possible to speak of the Eucharist as something relative to incarnate Christ. It is only the distorted lens of Protestantism that makes these passages cause a double take.

We didn’t invent it

It is possible that someone somewhere spoke of the Eucharist as a sign, or even as a figure of Christ, even though neither Augustine or Tertullian are good authority. Surely the Early Church already held the modern position. Her, for example, is St. Ignatius of Antioch (2 C.):

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

we have so much in common, and yet must part ways on this, all because Trent anathematized dissent

Protestantism grew out of Catholicism so naturally it inherited much from the Church. However, the "symbolic" view is indeed heretical and the only reason it had not been anathemized earlier is because it was not seriously held earlier.

[annalex]

I read your testimony, and i have mine

I think, Daniel, you'll be back. Anyone who reads the holy Scripture and seeks the truth will become Catholic if God gives him enough time.

[annalex]

you do not simply do not hold to salvation by works, but salvation via the Eucharist

Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith and works of self-denial done for no temporal reward in imitation of Christ. The Eucharist is a natural result of faith, as it is impossible to separate the faith in Jesus Christ and not do what He asked that does not require any sacrifice on our part.

the figurative use of eating and drinking and the means by which one gains spiritual and eternal life in Scripture.

See my previous post to Springfield Reformer; the Catholic reading is the only possible non-contradictory reading of John 6, the scene of the Last Supper, and 1 Corinthians 11. All that you do about it is not read the scripture but explain away the scripture, so that "is" no longer means "is".

the normal corporate meaning of church, that of the body of Christ, founded upon Christ, as seen understood among CFs, and the Lord's presence being that of the giving of the Spirit upon all believers.

That does not explain the promise of infallibility in "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you." Surely we can't both be infallible on such important matters and yet belong to that amorphous group of people who vaguely beleive a thing or two about Jesus Christ. It also contradicts the concrete text regarding Peter vested with leadership, and of the bishops likewise in a position of authority and leadership. You threw away all the specific scripture that does not match the Protestant ecclesiology.

it does not deny what i said, Scripture is not even determinative for an RC

It is determinative together with the patristic reading of it; the protestant musings about the scripture is not determinative. Why is it determinative only patristically? Because the scripture is the product of the work of the Fathers of the Church. In this case, however, -- the role of Peter and the bishops, the nature of the Eucharist, the inspired and infallible nature of the Catholic Church - the scripture is especially clear, so that any Protestant exegesis only succeeds in obfuscating it.

authority of Hell attacking the church

That is some kind of sheer nonsense. Christ breaks the gates of Hell and rescues men in bondage of sin, -- and He does it through His Church. That is what it means, nothing else.

For your interpretation to work, the body of Christ must refer to one church in submission to the pope

Correct, if you substitute "communion" for "submission". That is how it works, and in no other way can the text be making sense. One does not have to obey the Pope blindly, but one must seek communion with the Catholic Church where he arbitrates disputes, for otherwise the promise of the Church being inspired, inerrant and final authority in disputes -- fails.

The promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome the entity called the church is not a promise to individuals under my definition

Correct, it is not. Individual Catholics may end up in hell; individual non-Catholics, even non-Christians can be saved. The promise is to the Church as a single institution.

Christ, the Rock upon which the church is built

Of course. But Peter is named after Him, Rock. That cannot be insignificant.

the keys somehow translating into the infallible, invincible Church

The keys are described as opening or closing the gate of the Heavenly Kingdom, so yes, that metaphor speaks of the Church in communion with Peter, and by extension, his successor, being the final arbiter of salvation. Can the final arbiter of salvation be fallible? Invincibility comes not from the metaphor of the keys but from the direct speech, "gates of hell shall not prevail".

not once in all the NT is he shown doing so

... and even being quite fallible on some occasions. Yes, popes are generally sinful men; otherwise Christ would not have chosen him. Peter made the key decision to overturn the biblical prohibition on certain foods, and to accept the Gentiles, in the company of the other bishops, and the Council was presided by S.t James as the local bishop in Jerusalem. We had outright bad popes as well; the assumption that the pope must be some heroic leader at all times is not in the scripture. The scriptural role of the Pope is to resist error and "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

the primary evangelist and church planter is the apostle Paul

So? We see him, however, seeking approval from "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars". Yes, Peter (Cephas) is mentioned among others and not the first. We don't know if that is due to the temporal order in which Paul met them, or the authority he saw in them, or the fact that in Catholic practice today also, the faithful seek approval of the priest of his parish, then the bishop and very rarely the Pope.

Generally, you construct a straw man of the pope being some kind of spiritual generalissimo, above everyone else, then defeat it.

what Rome wrests from Matthew 16:18

These are true doctrines, except possibly (h) since Peter did found the Church at Antioch. They can hardly be derived from Matthew 16:18. Again, you can argue with Steve Hays if you want on the merits of each; I am not a Church historian.

the Lord knew what "rock" conveyed, and who the real Rock was, and made a distinction btwn what the rock-Peter said and the One whom he confessed, which rock name he was act in conformity with

Right, but He, with all that knowledge in mind, still renamed Bar-Jona Rock, and continues to call him Rock (in whatever language) despite Peter's falling out of grace a few times; once in the "satan" episode immediately following. Again: to read you is to wonder why the Bible has all these things that require many kilobytes of denials from you.

Somehow the prayer of the Lord that the faith of this poor, married leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, is asserted to mean, via extrapolative RC imagination , that Peter was the exalted infallible head

Yup; that is what faith that falls not and recovers from error, and confirms others in truth means: infallibility, -- immunity from sustained error.

not referring to doctrinal legislative action but that of settling personal disputes

Riight. One wonders why these mundane trivialities are in the Bible, while those all-important to the Protestant mind adjudication of theology through scripture alone is not.

The text in Matthew 18 does not restrict the issues between brethren that the church is to resolve in any way. Maybe because there was not such distinction? And why would Christ refer to "binding and loosing" right next to the key to salvation if He means healing medical problems? And "loosing" I take it is to kill the patient instead of "binding" him?

However, the principle of leadership and the teaching office, remains, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility

Because you say so? Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost teaching "for ever" and about "all things" and about Hell "not prevailing". So these were not promises? Or Christ did not know what He was talking about again?

the assurance of which really cannot be based upon the weight of Scripture?

This words I showed you and you denied them.

[annalex]

The Resurrection
Greek icon

I want to congratulate you both on the great feast of Easter. Christ is risen!

Since we spoke of the Gates of Hell so much it is fitting that we contemplate the holy icon showing these very gates. Here is the explanation of the icon, from an Orthodox source:

Some key features:

• Christ’s cape/robe is flowing upward, this symbolizes his radical descent into Hades to save all who have died.
• The golden bars by his feet are the gates of Hades, which he has broken and torn apart. There are keys floating in the abyss below, which symbolizes that he has entered and conquered both death and Hades.
• You may also note the skeletal figure who is chained up: that is Death. He has been bound and killed by Christ (all throughout Pascha we sing “Christ has trampled down death by death”).
• The two figures whom Christ has grasped and is pulling on are Adam and Eve, symbolizing that his victory redeems all mankind, even back to the beginning. This resurrection scene is taking place in the past, present, and future.
• To his left, we see three characters: David and Solomon, two of his ancestors according to his fleshly nature. We also see, closest to him John the Baptizer, who was his forerunner in both life and death.
• On the right, we have the apostles who are alive. The purpose is to show that Christ’s redemption transcends time and space. You could very well picture yourself on the right side, coming to Christ as he is breaking down the gates of Hades and setting the captives free. As I alluded to above, Christ ignores the constraints of time and space. This is an act that happened in the past, is happening right now, and will happen in the future. Christ is always in the state of redeeming and setting us free.
• The blue shape around Christ is called the Mandorla (which is Italian for almond, which describes its shape). The Mandorla is the uncreated, eternal light of Christ. In the writings of the Eastern Orthodox mystics, God is often prayerfully experienced as light. This is not simply a pretty bright light. It is the same light which filled the apostles with wonder when they witnessed His Transfiguration. It is the light which Christ Himself described as the power of the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:1 Matt 16:28 Luke 9:27). It is the light that filled the once perpetual darkness of Hades when Christ descended and brought life into the realm of death. It is also the light that is seen when one purifies their heart and mind (Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.)
• The Mandorla becomes progressively darker as it moves toward its center, which is Christ. If God is represented by light, the Mandorla may seem confusing. However, those who seek God will find that the more they know Him, the less they comprehend Him. To know God, to experience Him, is to walk in the darkness of His light, to enter into the mystery of His presence.

One of the key things to remember is that icons are not meant to be “photo recordings” of what happened. These are symbolic tools that help us to better grasp through our sense of sight and our imagination the gospel message.

For further reading on the intriguing ancient account from which this icon is taken, check out The Harrowing of Hades.

[annalex]

See above.

[Springfield Reformer]

Last part first, I became Christian when I received baptism; I was about one year of age. Of course as an adult I took a conscious and considered decision to seek full Communion with the Holy Catholic Church; I spent about a year sitting in church, like a good sheep, and another half a year in various forms and stages of Catechism. Christ once compared faith to a seed becoming a tree, and that is exactly was was happening since baptism and, glory be to God, will continue to happen till God takes me.

So your becoming a Christian was involuntary, therefore no problem with private judgment. Like some are born Muslim, so that must be right too. Got it. Too bad for atheists and others with no such background. They can't go crossing that Tiber (or go visit Mecca etc) unless they figure out, from private judgment, it's the right thing to do. And that's a problem, because "private judgment" is, after all, fallible. We or they could be wrong, no matter what we decide.

But of course I reject your premise. There is no scriptural account of anyone becoming a Christian by birth, or by infant baptism. Your volition made you Catholic, and therefore, regardless of the degree to which it is obscured, your private judgment, your decision to seek fellowship with any given community of faith, was and remains based on your fallible private judgment.

we take the scripture on its direct face value

Except for here:

Jesus the Door is obviously an allegory

Obviously? Obvious to whom? To you, in the great wisdom of your private judgment? Well it IS obvious, and requires no magisterium for such a conclusion, but it is obvious because God gives some light to every man, including the ordinary powers of language, reason, and reasonable inferences.

By which we also conclude that Jesus really meant what he said when he said "the flesh profits nothing; my words are spirit, and they are life."

Do you see the problem here? And I testify to this because I have engaged many a cultist, all of whom had their preprogrammed library of excuses for not accepting "face value" teachings of Scripture. There is nothing about transubstantiation that has anything to do with the face value of Scripture.

Transubstantiation per se was neither seen nor heard of until invented by Benedictine monk Radbertus in the 9th Century. It was ratified in general terms in 1215 by the 4th Lateran Council, and came through the instrumentality of pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle at the hand of Aquinas in the 13th Century. It explains nothing. It only obscures.

As for Ignatius, surely you understand his frame of reference. In the battle against Docetism, it was necessary to point out that the basis of the Eucharist was not some phantom aeon of the Christ spirit, but God come in the flesh. His words correspond exactly to the afore-quoted Tertullian, who inferred from the figure of the Eucharist a real, corporeal Christ whom the Gnostics could not deny.

But neither in Tertullian nor Ignatius are we locked into the special meaning of “is” created out of whole cloth by Radbertus and sealed into Roman doctrine by Aquinas. To shove the entire package known as transubstantiation into the verb of being wherever you find it is to ignore, to amputate, if you will, a necessary understanding of the ordinary language of the day, an understanding you yourself have just now acknowledged, in that you have no problem taking “is” non-literally when you do not have a Roman doctrine at stake:

Jesus the Door is obviously an allegory

So you see perhaps the problem of the Protestant apologist. To us, it appears your RC hermeneutic grants you wide latitude to use “is” however it suits you at the moment. You can then claim you are the only ones who take it at face value (because you have also defined “face value”), when in fact that is the opposite of what has just happened.

The Protestant hermeneutic, on the other hand, does not allow extraordinary meanings to words that work just as well with ordinary meanings. This does limit us; it compels us to exclude hidden meanings not evident from the ordinary meanings of words. Especially words that had no definition until eight centuries later.

As for your commentary on Augustine, I am familiar with the “both/and” theory of reconciling his apparently Protestant language regarding signs with the much later development of transubstantiation. If you find that theory credible or satisfactory, that’s up to you. For me, I am again bound to ordinary meanings for ordinary language. It is obvious he does not see the sign as also being the thing signified:

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage”

Augustine has gone to great pains to ensure his reader does NOT do the very thing you invite him to do. He clearly separates the thing the sign is about from the sign itself, and he further blockades abuse of his words by calling such confusion as you advocate a weakness.

Baptized people do not physically die and then rise from the dead in the baptismal waters. If that were the case, there would be none who doubt the truth of the Christian faith. But it is instead a spiritual exercise, with an outward sign to an inward reality.

Likewise, the bread and the wine of the holy meal are signs by which we remember and adore the one who died for our sins. It breaks my heart that He had to go to such lengths for someone as unworthy as me. But He did, and I am grateful for it.

How anyone can suggest we do not think of His sacrifice for us as real, and His presence with us as exquisitely real, is beyond me. God is spirit, and nothing is more real than God. His words are spirit, and they are life.

[annalex]

There is no scriptural account of anyone becoming a Christian by birth, or by infant baptism.

Birth has nothing to do with it. We become Christians when God makes us Christians. That, ordinarily is baptism. The soul and its volition has nothing to do with the soul getting the mark of the Holy Spirit. There is no direct scripture on infant baptism, because all interesting and instructive conversions are of adults. Indirectly, we read on a number of occasions that people were baptized "and their house", or maybe "household" ("οικος"). That is likely to include children. Christ asked the children to be brought to Him; why wouldn't He want them to brought to Him in the most meaningful sense of the word?

On this "private judgment" issue I have a feeling you have a question that I am not getting, or maybe there is something in it that is important to you that I never felt important. Like anything else I do there is grace of God in it and also my own private reason cooperating with grace. That is about all.

Obviously?

Just obvious: one allegory (door) is followed by another (vine), no sacrament is established based on doors, no insistence on the meaning of "door" being literate and no misunderstanding. The face value of allegory is allegory; no one is denying that they are plentiful. The point remains that John 6 is not framed as allegory, is in context of the feeding of thousands and the manna from heaven, and the impending sacrifice of Christ to give us life, -- neither three are allegorical. It is in the context of real physical events.

Jesus really meant what he said when he said "the flesh profits nothing; my words are spirit, and they are life."

Correct, neither this is allegorical speech, but it does not negate the physical character of the Eucharist. It furthers the explanation by noting that the effect of the Eucharist (the "profit" from it) is purely spiritual. It does not say that the Eucharist itself is purely spiritual. Christ did not change His mind from one verse to the next.

There is nothing about transubstantiation that has anything to do with the face value of Scripture

Correct again, the face value is simply "this is my body, eat it, and do it". How the bread becomes a body is not explained, nor should it be explained. The word of Christ, spoken solemnly at the Last Supper and the discussion in the future tense in John 6 with strikingly insisting, black-and-white tone should be enough whether we can explain it through some scholastic trick or not.

neither in Tertullian nor Ignatius are we locked into the special meaning of “is”

Sure we are, in the plain old meaning of "is" being "is". The Eucharist is Christ's body; who does not believe that Christians should stay away from. Note that he did not say "whoever thinks Christ is a spirit" are heretics, but "whoever does not believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ is a heretic". The Docetist context changes nothing.

The Protestant hermeneutic, on the other hand, does not allow extraordinary meanings to words that work just as well with ordinary meanings.

Well, that is unfortunate because there was nothing ordinary about virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, nor, to that matter, "manna" falling from the sky and five loaves feeding thousands. Of course the word "is" can be used to build an allegory as well as build a direct message; but the fact that Jesus speaks contrary to people's intuition, insists on what seems to them an absurdity being truth; and that the accounts at the Last Supper and in 1 Cor. 11 support the literal meaning but not an allegorical meaning, -- all that shows that the approach to avoid extraordinary meaning when talking of extraordinary things is not only stupid philosophically but also fails the plain text in front of you.

If you find that theory [transubstantiation] credible or satisfactory

Not particularly; on that I am with the Orthodox, I don't think a miracle of the Real Presence can or needs to be explained. The Eucharist is Christ's body not because Aquinas cleverly consulted Aristotle, but because Jesus said so.

He clearly separates the thing the sign is about from the sign itself

Good, if you deal with a sign. We don't, in this case: Christ did not say "this is a sign of my body; eat the sign", He said "this is my body for you to eat".

Baptized people do not physically die and then rise from the dead in the baptismal waters

That would be because Christ did not die and rise in baptism and did not ask us to do baptism in order to bring us to the Sacrifice of the Cross. The teaching on the Eucharist has no analogy in other sacraments of the Church

[daniel1212]

A charge of selective use of Scripture mostly describes RC apologetics and is so corporately duplicitous that it borders on insolence. And if anything much describes RCs not "ignoring the parts of the Holy Scripture, it is that of compelling texts to mean what simply is not there in that text or in the light of all of Scripture.

Faced with the absolute absence of even one prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or of anyone but the Lord Jesus being the heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, hearing and answering, and without any insufficiency in access or efficacy, while believers have direct access to the Father by Him, and zero examples that show anyone but the Lord being able to hear incessant mental prayers in Heaven sent from earth, then RCs invoke believers on earth praying for each others to justify reasoning that they can do what we only see God being able to do. After all, the Scriptures do not say they cannot (or play pool with planets....).

And angels and elders simply offering up the prayers of saints as a memorial at the time of judgment is sppsd to support them actually hearing prayers addressed to them and sanctioning it, and while the absence of any prayers to angels in Heaven is said to be due to overreaction to laws against witchcraft! And they think this passes for Scriptural warrant for a most common Catholic practice that is utterly absence in Scripture.

Then they demand we take Jn. 6:53,54 literally, which to be consistent means no Prots can be saved who deny the Catholic Real Presence, which is inconsistent with what V2 teaches, but which is subject to interpretation. While they are further inconsistent by refusing to take literally the many other texts that refer to eating and drinking figuratively, including water being the blood of men and men being bread.

Then they invoke 1Tim 1:15 as somehow meaning the church of Rome is the supreme authority on Truth, or Mt. 16:18; Luke 22:32 and Jn,.20:23 as teaching Peter would be the first of a line of infallible popes ruling supreme over all the church.

And then there are the incredible examples of thinking of Mary above that which is written.

Scripture is simply a servant for Rome to support her as desired, not her master.

[daniel1212]

(Note to reader: Please tally the substantive arguments in this entire thread and who made them, and see if I am not correct.)

Indeed. In the case of one who makes outlandish unsubstantiated assertions, the advice of the RM is fitting:

"..you will find many well educated, articulate, reasoning posters on the RF. You will also find a few who throw spitwads because they have no ammunition. Engage the former, ignore the latter." — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3134642/posts?page=162#162

I should follow it more, except for Prov. 26:5

[annalex]

Happy Easter.

the absolute absence of even one prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord

Perhaps. Absence is not prohibition, is it?

And angels and elders simply offering up the prayers of saints as a memorial at the time of judgment is sppsd to support them actually hearing prayers addressed to them and sanctioning it

It is supposed to suggest that the saints pray, and the prayers are heard by God since St. John sees them delivered, and does not write "...but God ignored the prayers brought to him". Besides the "time of judgment in these chapters of the Apocalypse is also a description of any Mass.

Then they demand we take Jn. 6:53,54 literally

Yes, they do, because it is written the way it is. Read the scripture every once in a while without trying to deny half of what you read, and you will be Catholic again.

[BlueDragon]

alex --- This kind of stuff;

Read the scripture every once in a while without trying to deny half of what you read, and you will be Catholic again.

is getting personal, telling him he is "denying" half of what he reads, or trying to, which is just your own personal opinion of dan. More true in this particular instance is perhaps the opposite, in more ways than one (like reading on to verse 63)...but never mind all of that, for now.

Discuss the issues (here of late, or at this juncture that being --scripture and theology) and not the person of another here -- as much as possible. Thank you.

Please review for all of that helps explain why.

[Springfield Reformer]

I have much to say in response, but I am driving a long way tomorrow and must get to bed. I wish you and yours a rich blessing from God. Be safe.

Peace,

SR