This Pope is Special

[Danmark]

I am not a theist, but there is something special about Pope Francis.
We can all learn something from him.
The most important things cannot be put into words.

[marco]

Why? Because He often knew if He just said exactly what He wanted us to know/do, we could change/misunderstand/etc. His words. Helping us see the story helps us understand far better than some direct approach. This can’t always be done, but when it can, he utilizes it. Crazy, I know, but true)

A good lecturer understands HOW to explain something lucidly to students. I don't believe Christ agonised over the depressing levels of understanding of his future listeners.

Perhaps the most famous is the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the word and the word of with God and the word was God" (John 1:1-3). Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1:14). Jesus is God.

There is NO clarity in the statement: in the beginning was the word. It is exquisitely vague and metaphorical. In the primordial silence there existed only the "word" of God and God was his own word; then he sent a messenger or messengers to express his word, thus metaphorically making his word into flesh. It seems absurd to regard Jesus as God from these lines.

People hated Jesus because they saw Him as blasphemous (He saw Himself as God). That was His crime!

His crime was arrogating himself to a position above the revered Abraham. That merited stoning. He possibly meant that, since he is metaphorically the "word of God", then he existed before Abraham. That makes sense -to me , anyway. To his listeners he was simply belittling Abraham, a risky thing to do even today.

Then it said, many left Him that day. Why would they have left Him if He was speaking symbolically?

You attempt to extract too much from the text. If they mistakenly THOUGHT he was blaspheming, they would leave. If he WAS speaking symbolically, they could have misunderstood and left. I see no problem here. In any event, eating and drinking his flesh and blood is either an invitation to cannibalism or it is hghly metaphoric, which I think, going on previous statements, it is. His flesh was not true food, only figuratively so. If they misunderstood, they would have been disgusted. And left.

IMO, that is simply one more justification/excuse to not believe. And an unfounded one.

That is a curious phrase: excuse NOT to believe. Surely there is more reason for people to have an excuse for believing. If someone calls at my door I do not need an excuse NOT to believe his identity; rather, I need convincing proof that he is what he says. I'm afraid the Bible does not supply this. You plead that it does, but your arguments are no more than appeals. I would close my door; you don't. You may be lucky.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I don't believe Christ agonised over the depressing levels of understanding of his future listeners.

Nor do I. He knew human nature. He knew He needed to do what He could. This would work for some and not for others. For those who have ears, let them hear . . .

There is NO clarity in the statement: in the beginning was the word. It is exquisitely vague and metaphorical.

To many there is. Something can be vague and metaphorical yet still true.

Much of our modern difficulty, in religion and other things, arises merely from this: that we confuse the word "indefinable" with the word "vague." If some one speaks of a spiritual fact as "indefinable" we promptly picture something misty, a cloud with indeterminate edges. But this is an error even in commonplace logic. The thing that cannot be defined is the first thing; the primary fact. It is our arms and legs, our pots and pans, that are indefinable. The indefinable is the indisputable. The man next door is indefinable, because he is too actual to be defined. And there are some to whom spiritual things have the same fierce and practical proximity; some to whom God is too actual to be defined. –G.K. Chesterton

You attempt to extract too much from the text. If they mistakenly THOUGHT he was blaspheming, they would leave. If he WAS speaking symbolically, they could have misunderstood and left. I see no problem here. In any event, eating and drinking his flesh and blood is either an invitation to cannibalism or it is hghly metaphoric, which I think, going on previous statements, it is. His flesh was not true food, only figuratively so. If they misunderstood, they would have been disgusted. And left.

They were disgusted, as Scripture says. “Many took offense�. And they shockingly asked, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?� They obviously recognized He was telling them it was His flesh, otherwise their words and reaction make no sense!!!!! And you’re right, they would have seen His words as an invitation to cannibalism. That is exactly how they saw them and why they were so shocked and why Jesus would have known His words would have been very difficult to hear believing what His audience did about cannibalism. And they, like him, knew He wasn’t speaking symbolically because He used words that actually when translated did not simply mean eat – the words Jesus used, when translated correctly actually meant chew/munch. And here Jesus was telling them that they needed to chew His flesh. Crazy talk! And yet does Scripture not refer to Him as the sacrificial lamb? Did Jesus correct their confusion? No! Because they weren’t confused! They had heard and understood Him correctly. They simply didn’t like what He was saying. They didn’t trust that He could do what He was suggesting.

Sorry, but you might want to look into the passage further. When one does, there is no denying what Christ meant. And is also something even Martin Luther and the rest of the early Church believed. To adopt some reformed theology years later in order to justify some new religion is a failed attempt to simply acknowledge Scripture.

That is a curious phrase: excuse NOT to believe. Surely there is more reason for people to have an excuse for believing. If someone calls at my door I do not need an excuse NOT to believe his identity; rather, I need convincing proof that he is what he says. I'm afraid the Bible does not supply this.

And if this person who calls at your door tries to explain to you in a million different ways who he is, and he brings along others who vouch for who he is, and his actions and behavior demonstrate who he is, then it would only be reasonable to admit he has given no reason NOT to believe who he is. One would actually have to go out of his way and look for excuses why they don’t believe who he is.

[marco]

Much of our modern difficulty, in religion and other things, arises merely from this: that we confuse the word "indefinable" with the word "vague."

G K Chesterton seems determined to strike me over the head when I mention some key word, such as "vague."

And they, like him, knew He wasn’t speaking symbolically because He used words that actually when translated did not simply mean eat – the words Jesus used, when translated correctly actually meant chew/munch. And here Jesus was telling them that they needed to chew His flesh. Crazy talk!

I confess I have not heard this justification for the doctrine of transubstantiation. It sounds like the stuff a well-read Jesuit might present to the Union of Catholic mothers, to boost their faith, if that were ever necessary. "Eat" "chew" "munch" are all reasonable candidates for metaphor as any decent poet will tell you.

And if this person who calls at your door tries to explain to you in a million different ways who he is, and he brings along others who vouch for who he is,

I would question his sanity. A simple presentation of official documentation would suffice. That is my argument regarding Christ.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 63 by marco]

I confess I have not heard this justification for the doctrine of transubstantiation

I’m not sure I would call it a justification for transubstantiation. I am merely translating the meaning of the text. There are many other verses that reveal the truth of the Real Presence as well. Of course there are all the parallels of the OT about Christ being the sacrificial lamb and the bread from the heaven, but one of the more telling ones is when Scripture warns that those who receive without discerning the Body, pass judgment unto themselves. Kind of hard for eating mere “symbolic bread� to pass judgment upon ourselves. Again, that simply wouldn’t make sense.

It sounds like the stuff a well-read Jesuit might present to the Union of Catholic mothers, to boost their faith

LOL! That hasn’t been my experience. Unfortunately, Jesuits would be more likely to focus on social justice issues and be happier to celebrate the similarities we share with other faiths then celebrate some of the more unique Catholic truths. I shouldn’t, because there are of course some awesome Jesuits, but I am often turned off by what I have seen from many of them and would not purposely seek out some presentation given by them. St. Ignatius is probably turning in his grave what many have done to his Society of Jesus.

And yes, I realize Pope Francis is a Jesuit and I have great respect for the Pope, but he certainly isn’t my favorite and the Jesuits are not one of my favorite orders. I think out of some attempt to be inclusive, they often fail to mention the hard beautiful truths. There is a place for both, but one should never be done at the expense of the other.

"Eat" "chew" "munch" are all reasonable candidates for metaphor as any decent poet will tell you.

Oh, I forgot, gnaw is also what those familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic say the word Jesus used would have meant to those who heard it. And no, I don’t think if Jesus was attempting to be poetic and speaking metaphorically would have said, “Unless you gnaw my flesh . . . “ and I don’t think any reasonable person would think so either. I encourage you to study the passage to better understand the teaching and why the Church teaches what it does.

A simple presentation of official documentation would suffice. That is my argument regarding Christ.

That’s what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are, but you still claim, “not enough�

[marco]

I have great respect for the Pope, but he certainly isn’t my favorite and the Jesuits are not one of my favorite orders.

That brings us conveniently back to the topic. I admire his devout impracticality. I've also a fondness for the Jesuit order.

Kind of hard for eating mere “symbolic bread� to pass judgment upon ourselves. Again, that simply wouldn’t make sense.

You think so? Then read Matthew on calling your brother a fool and meriting hellfire. Does that make more sense?

Oh, I forgot, gnaw is also what those familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic say the word Jesus used would have meant to those who heard it. And no, I don’t think if Jesus was attempting to be poetic and speaking metaphorically would have said, “Unless you gnaw my flesh . . . “ and I don’t think any reasonable person would think so either.

There goes my pretension to being reasonable. Virgil happily said the pine tree carried sailors, when he meant a ship made of pine wood. When Christ said: "You must be born again" does the reasonable person take this literally? When he says "Do this in commemoration of me" why would we NOT take this as an invitation to remember him in a symbolic ceremony? He was perfectly capable of using symbolic language and could almost have beaten Chesterton in the use of paradox. You are forcing words to say what you want them to say.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

Virgil happily said the pine tree carried sailors, when he meant a ship made of pine wood. When Christ said: "You must be born again" does the reasonable person take this literally? When he says "Do this in commemoration of me" why would we NOT take this as an invitation to remember him in a symbolic ceremony? He was perfectly capable of using symbolic language and could almost have beaten Chesterton in the use of paradox. You are forcing words to say what you want them to say.

Yes, He was perfectly capable of using symbolic language and often did so. He also spoke direct and literal at times. It is simply illogical to argue otherwise. And I must say the examples you used do not help your case.

First the “born again� verses do not always mean what many have claimed it to mean. The actual Scripture is as follows:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Unfortunately many Christian denominations have taken these words to describe someone’s personal experience of accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and savior, but that is not the context of this Scripture. This Scripture is actually referring to Baptism. And in that sense, it isn’t quite as symbolic as you suggest. In Baptism our souls are born again – literally changed – it is not mere symbol and water is literally used in this rite.

As for “Do this in commemoration of me� – that is what the Catholic Church does, but unlike many groups we don’t ignore the “This is my Body part�. We do both. Why suggest that the 'in memory" verse is an either/or situation - you either do it in memory OR receive Christ. It is actually an AND situation - you do both.

And I feel there is much you do not fully understand about the “Do this in commemoration of me�. The Greek word anamnasis is used. According to scholars the word indicates to call back again into memory a vivid experience. The important question, however, is this: What is the "this" that we are to do "in memory of Him?" In other words, what is the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice? According to the Catholic Church transubstantiation describes what it is that we are to do "in memory of Him."

We can know that Christ was not speaking symbolically in His words, “This is my body� because of the actual language/words He chose to use, the context, the reaction of those who heard His words, and prior and subsequent Scripture passages speaking about the Holy Eucharist as well. So no, I am not forcing words to mean what I want them to mean. Perhaps you are allowing words to mean something because you are missing some obvious meaning of the text. Also, and very important this once again demonstrates my point about the importance of recognizing that Christ would have established an earthly Church to help us understand. As you indicate Scripture can at times be confusing or unclear and all of it requires some interpretation. I suggest it is you who misses the true message of the verses you cite. If only there was a way to clear this up. Now isn’t it only reasonable if one were to believe in Christ to believe He would have taken care of this inherent flaw in human beings and the written word?

Again, I will leave you to contemplate if the Protestant interpretation of “This is my body� being merely symbolic were correct, how could St. Paul’s words make sense? Why would he have warned about the dangers of receiving a piece of bread that had mere symbolic meaning? These very strong words make no sense if just a few passages earlier Christ were speaking metaphorically. Sorry, but the reason in me prevents me from understanding Paul’s words if we were to understand Christ’s as symbolic.


“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.�

[marco]

And I feel there is much you do not fully understand about the “Do this in commemoration of me�.

I take it that while my understanding remains imperfect, yours is infallible. I see.
a) You have chosen to take Christ's words on this occasion as literal though you admit he was fond of the figurative. Many would consider the literal interpretation an absurdity. You say these people are unreasonable.

b) You think that the caution: don't eat and drink unworthily suggests that food is transubstantiated into actual flesh and blood, while still retaining the accidents of bread and wine. A substance change, visible only to the eyes of faith. That is convenient. Unworthiness and condemnation would come if the pious commemoration were received impiously.

c) It is sensible to suppose Christ wanted people to remember him as he was. Repeat what I'm doing in my memory. Nobody was eating his flesh then; nor now.

But it is pointless for us to argue this issue -the mysterium fidei. I have read Latin texts from the old Missale Romanum on this subject. I am unimpressed and unpersuaded. Your faith speaks and there is no counter-argument to that.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

You have chosen to take Christ's words on this occasion as literal though you admit he was fond of the figurative.

You make it sound like my reasons for doing so are arbitrary. I carefully laid out why I would think the more reasonable thing to do would be to take His words literal in this particular verse (like I said due to language use, context, reaction of the crowd, reading Scripture as a whole, what the early Church believed and taught, evidence from early Church writings, etc.

Just like in everyday conversation we can use reason and clues to determine whether someone is speaking literally or metaphorically. I believe in this particular case there is much more evidence to conclude a literal interpretation.

Many would consider the literal interpretation an absurdity.

Ahhhhh . . . so your reasoning for coming to a symbolic interpretation is based more on because what it would mean Christ is saying sounds crazy and maybe even impossible (many don’t believe Jesus was God’s son or walked on water for these reasons either) Your reaction is exactly that of those who listened to Christ that day. They too proclaimed, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? That’s just crazy talk! And yet, Jesus didn’t say, hold up guys – you misunderstand. Let’s try this again. I was just being poetic here gang. No. the crowd took offense and why wouldn’t they – Jesus was telling them He should gnaw His flesh. But then Jesus turned to Peter and asked do you too wish to go? And Peter though not fully understanding everything himself trusted Christ at His words and said, to whom would I go, Lord? You alone have the words of eternal life.

Believing in transubstantiation is the same faith required in believing anything else Christ said or did.

Your faith speaks and there is no counter-argument to that.

Yes and no. I am a firm believer in faith and reason. Faith does not mean checking reason at the door. It is through faith and reason that we come to know God.

[tam]

Again, I will leave you to contemplate if the Protestant interpretation of “This is my body� being merely symbolic were correct, how could St. Paul’s words make sense? Why would he have warned about the dangers of receiving a piece of bread that had mere symbolic meaning? These very strong words make no sense if just a few passages earlier Christ were speaking metaphorically. Sorry, but the reason in me prevents me from understanding Paul’s words if we were to understand Christ’s as symbolic.


“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.�

Paul did not warn against thinking the bread and wine were symbolic.

Look at his words in context:

Now then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. For as you eat, many of you proceed with your own meal to the exclusion of others. While one remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?...



... Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.


That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you come together it will not result in judgment.




So there are a couple of things going on here:

A - some were not discerning the body of Christ - the bread was mere food to eat to satisfy their physical hunger; and the wine was mere drink with which they could get drunk.

B - some were showing no regard for others IN the Body; treating them as less, thinking themselves better than (hence some ate and drank to the exclusion and humiliation of others in the Church; which is why Paul asked them if they despised the Church - the people - of God. And we were also told that "by the measure we use against others, it will be measured to us").

This is why Paul said that a man must examine HIMSELF before he eats and drinks.


But Paul's admonitions had nothing to do with whether some thought the bread and wine literally became the physical flesh and blood of Christ or if the bread and wine represented the flesh and blood of Christ. We eat and drink the bread and wine that mean His body and blood out of love for Him (because He said to do this) and because:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.


Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

You make it sound like my reasons for doing so are arbitrary. I carefully laid out why I would think the more reasonable thing to do would be to take His words literal in this particular verse (like I said due to language use, context, reaction of the crowd, reading Scripture as a whole, what the early Church believed and taught, evidence from early Church writings, etc.

Do you honestly suppose that language use, context, crowd reaction etc. introduce a spectacular miracle? I don't think miracles are called into existence by examining grammar, textual position and faces in a crowd. I think I am being reasonable here.

Just like in everyday conversation we can use reason and clues to determine whether someone is speaking literally or metaphorically. I believe in this particular case there is much more evidence to conclude a literal interpretation.

But we are NOT dealing with an ordinary situation. You are reading the extra-extra-extra-ordinary into simple speech.

Your reaction is exactly that of those who listened to Christ that day. They too proclaimed, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? That’s just crazy talk! And yet, Jesus didn’t say, hold up guys – you misunderstand. Let’s try this again. I was just being poetic here gang. No. the crowd took offense and why wouldn’t they – Jesus was telling them He should gnaw His flesh.

We do not have a wealth of information from each bystander; we have a simple account from which you are extrapolating and expanding imaginatively. For you, a graphic instruction equals an announcement of a miracle. For others, the words are like: Don't forget me, please. You believe because the Church Fathers have said so: end of argument.

Believing in transubstantiation is the same faith required in believing anything else Christ said or did.

There are many who, with Tertullian, believe because it's impossible. Faith does that. Faith also makes people into suicide bombers. Faith makes people torture and burn other people. I agree that faith has a miraculous hold on human minds.

Faith does not mean checking reason at the door. It is through faith and reason that we come to know God.

I don't agree. Faith does leave reason at the door. The very definition of "mystery" places it "above reason but revealed by God." There is no logic in receiving a wafer on one's tongue and pronouncing: "My Lord and my God." This is total faith. Reason is absent. Aquinas's "sight, touch and taste in Thee are each deceived," is a man of faith coming to terms with absurdity.... and leaving reason at the door.

I have wandered in the same woods and I emerged, my reason intact.