[ealgeone]

verga: >>Please prove that Christ's words "This is My body" were not literal<<

A catholic priest is on record of saying the following:

The entire Gospel of John uses a system of symbols. Each action of Jesus--feeding the multitude, turning water into wine, being sacrificed in the manner of the Passover Lamb, giving Mary to John as his mother--is used by John as a sign of a greater or spiritual reality.

[Springfield Reformer]

verga: >>Please prove that Christ's words "This is My body" were not literal<<

Invalid form of argument. Verga is requesting that someone else take the burden of proof which belong squarely with the underlying positive assertion that "This is my body" is literal.  In layman's terms, never get suckered into trying to prove a negative, when it's the positive assertion that's really in dispute.  It's not your job to prove the negative.  It's his job to prove the positive.  It's like, "Prove there are no people from Planet X living among us."  How would one do that?  There are many cases where proving the negative is a patent impossibility, but which has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the positive assertion. In short, it is an obfuscation tactic, and very effective if you don't keep track of where and how the burden got moved from its rightful place.

Bottom line, if someone asserts "This is my body" translates to the Aristotelian/Aquinian formulation of transubstantiation, it is their problem to prove that positive assertion is exactly what the speaker meant.

This is especially obligatory here, because the positive assertion that "this is my body" should be understood as Aristotelian realism or corporeality is a case of special pleading, as in almost all other examples of this sort of usage, a simple verb of being joining two dissimilar domains (loaf = body) would trigger the metaphor reflex.  Thus, for the claim to be established as true, the one offering it must prove the positive form of the assertion, that "This is my body" = Aristotelian realism as framed by Aquinas and Trent.  Otherwise, the ordinary reader is well within his/her rights to understand this expression as an ordinary direct metaphor describing a one time, extraordinary act of divine love and sacrifice, which act we are specifically told to remember whenever we encounter the literal loaf and wine of the literal paschal meal.

Peace,

SR

[verga]

The entire Gospel of John uses a system of symbols. Each action of Jesus--feeding the multitude, turning water into wine, being sacrificed in the manner of the Passover Lamb, giving Mary to John as his mother--is used by John as a sign of a greater or spiritual reality.

And.....