An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[Radical]

Do you mean you worship in distinct faith communities ?

yes…though I wouldn’t participate in a Catholic Eucharist for obvious reasons.

As to the beliefs, typical of most modern NRP thought, that 1) the consecrated Eucharistic elements can get lost, and that happens since 2) their “function” is over with the celebration, I offered to your attention Justin First Apology ch. 67 against the latter ( if the Eucharistic species did not remain holy outside the celebration, it would be absurd sending it to those far away, even with potential risks) . .

1. holiness does not require a RBP 2) the sending IMHO should be classified as being within the celebration

My 2009 Edition of the Holy Bible, commented by first rank ( catholic) biblists ( who could anyway be wrong) explains that Hebrews 10:22 speaks about baptism.

the last 1/4 of it speaks of baptism, but that is after the “sprinkling”

You could read the Last Supper as a Passover ( eating the Lamb) New Covenant

were two lambs then consumed at the last supper?

( distributing the blood). It seems to me that contemporary scholars point to a unique mix of continuity and innovation, at the Last Supper as well as in the Didache, with Jewish custom.

The meal and the blood rite share with each other the idea of creating kinship.

agreed and agreed

This approach also answers IMHO a frequent NRP objection: that in Exodus 12 the blood of the lamb of course is not consumed.
You have Exodus 12 plus Exodus 24 in the Upper Room. Passover and New Covenant !

but the blood is not consumed in Ex 24 either

The phenomenology of the event overcomes dietary costumes.

it wasn’t just a dietary custom…it was a dietary law.

It is IMHO misleading enough telling repeatedly that they have to eat His flesh, without explaining how, and then distributing with a “take and eat” what He qualifies as “His body”, at a supper, to mean anything except that they must and can eat His flesh.

IMHO it is not nearly as misleading as claiming a “real bodily presence” w/o a real body being really present.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

I owe your kindness a last post on this thread.

feel free to make a final pitch…I believe it is your turn to close off.

BTW. Sometimes walls fall.

true…either in this life of the next

Have you ever been in Berlin ?

nope…it is on my bucket list though

when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner.

What does happen in figurative expressions ? We have to go beyond the appearance to get the res.

It’s raining dogs. If I look for dogs falling from the sky everywhere, then my understanding is carnal. The res is another one. I have understood the letter , I took, accepted it instead of the res. That is carnal because stops at what appears, without getting what is under or beyond the signum.
Carnal is remaining in the limits of what appears, the letter of the words.

agreed

That’s the part about words. What about objects ?.

He speaks about objects which are signa, ie have a res which is distinct from themselves under or beyond themselves,just as figurative expressions have.

In this case when am I in bondage ? It is the parallel with figurative expressions that enlightens us, IMHO.

Which error corresponds here to taking literally an expression which is figurative ?

Remember that the literal meaning was the signum and the figurative meaning was the res ( if the expression is indeed figurative, of course). The error is taking, understanding the literal, which is the signum, instead of understanding, without understanding the res, the figurative meaning.

Then in the realm of objects instituted as signs the error is taking, considering the signum ( the object institututed as signum) without understanding or accepting the res under and beyond it, of which it is a signum.

And that’s it. That is *signa pro rebus accipere. *

I hope I could be clear and helpful enough here. I understand…though I still don’t think that your explanation deals with
If, then, to take a sign which has been established for a useful end instead of the thing itself which it was designed to signify, is bondage to the flesh, how much more so is it to take signs intended to represent useless things for the things themselves!
or
…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. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage.

It has occured to me (IMHO) that a better way to explain the error Augustine was speaking about would be the error of taking the breaking and distribution of the bread (or the OT animal sacrifice) as the true sacrifice (for the forgiveness of sins) as opposed to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross…

God bless you and yours…Cheers