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

[Mike2010]

Mike, which “proof” are you referring to here?

The proof is in the writings of the ECF’s writings.

 

[Radical]

Fine. And that means the proposed corruption was possibly very early. From what scholars can we see expositions of this proposal about a possibly early corruption moving from Syria and Asia Minor ?

It is not as if I am suggesting that the doctrine spread out like a conquering army and that Antioch would have had to be won and secured before Jerusalem could be put under seige and that it would have to be taken before Alexandria could be attacked. I don’t know of any scholars who have suggested that sort of development of the doctrine. I believe that Ben Witherington and Garry Wills would be scholars that hold compatible views to mine wrt a RBP corruption being introduced. Edward Kilmartin is a scholar who views the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasts this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”

I respectfully maintain that this distinction, about what I am allowed to do vs what I am able to is not a fine one, and can help us a lot here. This is about not being able to consecrate the eucharistic elements wiithout bishops. The bishops were able to do that and entitle to do that, in Ignatius’ teaching.
Since the Apostles had been the ones originally in charge with “touto poiein” since the Last Supper, we could suspect the bishops were their successors in this role of sanctification.

It may be your suspicion, but it isn’t mine.

You then also draw your own boundaries, the boundaries of orthodoxy.
For sure there were forms of early chrstianities very far from what would come out as the mainstream, and not sharing the NT canon we today share: ebionites and Gnostics among others. ( even if we should also draw the very boundaries of Christianity ….).
I cannot see a picture of the primitive Church as encouraging people to draw lines and boundaries by themselves. Think just of Acts 15.

…and I cannot see a picture of the primitive Church as encouraging people to have a significant focus on anyone but Christ (see the whole of the NT regarding the significance of Mary) What is one to do when (they feel that) the hierarchy has led so badly? Pretending that all is well and submitting to error doesn’t seem to be a legitimate option

You proposed also that John 6 is about Sola Fide and a foretelling of crucifixion. I had observed in a previous thread that such a hard and peculiar language would not appear fully justified IMHO in the mentioned reading.
Now, what about ,* "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”. * as reconsidered by the Apostles in the light of the Institution. ?
The Lord distributed in the Upper Room what He was calling His Body and His blood. This for sure would not help a “just have faith” interpretation of John 6. IMHO.

I don’t see how it hurts it either. In the context of the whole of the gospel of John, belief in Christ is the clear and repeated means of gaining eternal life. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t even get a mention in a gospel which was written so that its audience might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing one would receive life in his name. Now, you no doubt, believe that a mention is not needed b/c the reference to the Lord’s Supper in the Bof Life passage is so obvious…but I see the obviousness going the other way.

IMHO it could not be the most powerful explanation that the extraordinary repeated and hard language in John 6, coupled with the language and the actions in the Upper Room means “whoever eats a MERE SYMBOL OF my flesh and drinks a MERE SYMBOL OF my blood has eternal life.

nor would I ascribe that meaning to it…I would describe it as whoever accepts (eats and drinks) the benefit of the offering of my body and the pouring out of my blood (for the forgiveness of sins) has eternal life. With the Lord’s Supper a strong object lesson is given…the breaking and distribution of the bread demonstrated what was about to happen to his body and how the benefits of that breaking would be distributed amongst all believers. The strong object lesson was better served (in the greek telling of it) by the use of the present tense.

Couldn’t it after all be that the RP view has more explanatory power about the relation John 6 – Institution ?

For you, obviously yes, for me, definitely no.

 

[Radical]

The passage by Ignatius was:
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

I can follow your lead, that Iggy is going after John 6 here. It seems to me you are somehow coming to consider that John 6 has something to do with the Eucharist, after all.

This is what I had said earlier: …*verse 51 is a cryptic promise to give his body as a sacrifice for our sins. Verses 53-58 teach, in figurative language, of our need to have complete faith in him…the figures foreshadow the Lord’s Supper where the elements are the visible embodiments of these figures. *
I think that I am still at the same place.

I f he does not just desire to have faith in Christ’s crucifixion, if what is compared to corruptible food is a food and a drink, then bread and blood appear on equal footing, pointing to a realistic consideration of the bread as flesh of Jesus Christ. Unless wo do postulate that he is obvious that he HAS to mean “ a mere symbol of his blood”. .

You have lost me with the point you are trying to make here. The last half of the paragraph reads:
For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

From that it seems that Iggy is saying that he longs to die and go to the Father…he has no desire for the pleasures of this life or for its food. It is hard to attribute to him any particular belief wrt a presence in the Eucharist as the obiter dicta contains portions that are so figurative/flowery that it is hard to say where the “literal” starts and stops.

What about Ephesians 20 ?

again, it is hard to attribute to him any particular belief wrt a presence in the Eucharist as “medicine of immortality” doesn’t specify any sort of particular presence.

 

[Radical]

I am very surprised we agree on my point 1 above on modern NRP congregations 1) they have departed so far from Sacred Tradition, that such expressions would sound simply alien, or meaningless, to them.
By this I mean that post-Reformation communities have unfortunately, in diverse degrees, forgotten or changed parts of Jesus’ message received by them through the Apostolic Chruch.

That is how you understand what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, but I think that what Catholics call Sacred Tradition no longer accurately reflects the message of Jesus that was received through the Apostolic Chruch

You’re back to
"If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. On Chrisrian Doctrine III, 19

I had shown that Augustine IMHO exemplifies there a famous error of perception happened within Scriptures.

and IIRC correctly, my response was that, from his language (ie “we should”) one can see that Augustine was explaining how his audience should understand the requirement and not (just) how Jesus’s audience should have undertsood that requirement

I object to the equations figurative = spiritual literal = carnal as such.

Well, here are three quotes from Augustine’s OCD III arranged in an order to deal with your objection:

*“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure,…

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

…but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many,…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*

Despite the rearrangement, I believe that they remain true to Augustine’s understanding (and wrt John 6 establish the equations).

Augustine precisely develops aspects of the catholic Eucharistic thought. He is quoted so often on Eucharistic issues. And even in the Catechism itself.
I get that you maintain that the Church cannot understand, and never could, what her own Doctor writes. Which, although very remarkable per se , is not so surprising since after all that is what you do of course about Scriptures.

quoting and giving him the title of “doctor” does not give the modern Catholic Church any proprietary interest in Augustine or in his theology.

Remember just that this is extremely anti-augustinian. If you told him that the Catholic Church is wrong in reading Scriptures, he’d reply that if it were so, then those would not be …Scriptures for him, in the first place.

That might be so, but it begs the question as to whether Augustine would equate what is called the Catholic Church with the catholic church. I can’t imagine that the ECFs would have envisioned that Christ’s body could be selling its offices or trading in grace as if it was a common commodity. Your Augustinian reply is based on the assumption that the CC is to be trusted in all matters, but IMHO the high expectations of the typical ECF would cause him to reject that assumption once he looked back on the history of what is called the CC.

My much greener team is. 9 ( girl), almost 4 ( girl) and 2 (boy).

looks like you’ve got your hands full…nicely done.

Could you pass me some wisdom about parenting teenagers in our time?

Nope, I wouldn’t pretend to have anything of quality to pass on. It’s an interesting generation…their outlook is so very different from our own (if you think my generation of protestants is bad about refusing to accept anything on the basis of an authority’s statement, wait to you see the reluctance of my daughters’ generation )…tis a good thing I am always right, otherwise they wouldn’t listen to a thing that I have to say.
God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

So what are you suggesting? …a truce?

The RBP side will not publicly declare that their view is the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution words or of John 6 and the NRP side will not publicly declare that their view is the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution words or of John 6. Each will still be free to declare among themselves that theirs is the plain and obvious meaning (if such a meaning exists).

That is probably about as much as can be achieved…I would like to see the RBP side also acknowledge that theirs is not a “literal” understanding (for reasons stated many times before), but that is probably too much to ask.

Dear Radical,

I have probably never written that a RP interpretation was obvious for the Apostles.
I do not guess it was. I rather think that, since a NRP interpretation wasn’t obvious either, they were induced to believe, at the end of the day, that the astonishing opposite was true.

You could accept the first part of the last sentence and reject the second. (It seems, nevertheless, you are more inclined to reject the first one as well).

So, for me, your proposal of leaving aside saying this or that was obvious is OK.

Just, why speaking in terms of “truce” ?

 

[pneuma07]

Actually, I think he indicates both. The belief (imho) is described in this sentence that we quoted earlier: “Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” Yes, Pelikan believed that there was something that could be identified as a belief in a “real presence”, but given his description of it, that presence was something that encompassed a real presence that wasn’t a Real Bodily Presence. The belief as described by Pelikan was so imprecise that its adherents could hold to a variety of views including one that would understand the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be little more than symbolic (ie Clement and Origen).

It seems that we have now gotten to the point of analyzing the finer details of Pelikan’s understanding of the finer details of the ECFs understanding of presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper.
.

IMHO Pelikan states that the Church, when controversies had arisen, would precise the early belief She had owned.

I follow you in considering that enough has been said in the present context about the author you proposed.

I think you are right in observing that much of what we can glean wrt early Eucahristic thought is derived from obiter dicta…With respect to an “essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine,” I would liken that to a claim that the church in the early fourth century possessed an essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine of the divinity of Christ. The consensus was that Jesus was divine, but from that starting point, there were the two extremes; one viewing Jesus as created and the other viewing Jesus as the same substance as the Father. With one extreme view “divine” was significantly qualified and meant something very different from the other extreme “divine”.

The consensus on divinity was precarious indeed in that generation.
What a striking contrast with centuries and centuries of Eucharistic peace !

Why should we liken a situation at the very eve of a terrible upheaval, to a doctrinal issue which did not produce any serious disputation in the West in the whole of the first millennium ? Moreover from within Eastern or Oriental Churches no major conflict during both millennia would arise !

It must have been mainly through liturgies .that a deep rooted and at the same time kept in harmony belief
would flourish . If that equilibrium was unstable, then it took a whole millennium to discover that, and then only in the West.

That wasn’t the direction of my question, but given your answer I’ll make two points. First, most all denominations fancy themselves to be the successors of the apostles through correct doctrine or through “apostolic succession”…so, in one sense, most all conversions are claimed to be a conversion to the apostolic church

You know that I know that, and you also know what I mean by Apostolic

second, if one converts from NRP to RBP then one must leave the NRP denomination and join one of the RBP denominations…on the other hand, if a Catholic (such as Garry Wills) looks at the early church and comes to the realization that the RBP is a innovation, it is not necessary for him to leave his RBP denomination as the RBP denominations don’t seem particularly diligent in enforcing adherence to their doctrine.
To clarify what I meant by my question, I’ll return to this quote from Pelikan: *“Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” *
Pelikan wrote that in 1971. About 20 years later Paul Bradshaw did a pretty good job of arguing that we know much, much less about the liturgical practices of the first three centuries of Christianity than we once thought that we did…and that what we do know points to more variety. I think that this is the trend of scholarship and that it would weaken even further the claim to any sort of consensus

’Tis very true that you can become almost anything by becoming NRP. Any non-Christian is NRP.

I am not honestly in a position at present to confirm or deny that what separates the two mentioned authors corresponds to a macro-trend . I am however persuaded that progress in research often means, for general scholarship and for each poor fellow, recognizing we know less then previously thought. And that there was, ever since primitive years, a liturgical plurality within the Apostolic Church.It seems to me that was recognized by authors of previous generations as well.

And that a variety of rites was OK then, as it is OK today. A trend towards ritual uniformity seems to appear particularly since the eigth century. I wonder why should such a variety be upsetting at all.

What I probably fail to see are early practices which are incompatible with a RP thought. Whereas we can see practices which are hardly compatible with a NRP mindset.

 

[pneuma07]

You are too optimistic…we of the NRP view are not nearly as creative as the RBP bunch. None of us would succeed in building a merely symbolic reading in Trent’s formulations.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

I have probably never written that a RP interpretation was obvious for the Apostles. I do not guess it was.

Understood…so many of your brethren in the RBP camp do…and I think my line of argument was initiated in response to one such claim

Just, why speaking in terms of “truce” ?

Just my way of saying we have probably hit a wall and its time to move on…Cheers

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, I keep in touch with and worship with a range of friends and family (RCs included) )

Do you mean you worship in distinct faith communities ?

for all we do share…this should really be more common, except that we focus on our differences.

Amen

Sorry, I don’t understand the question.

You commented:
.* “The Lord’s Supper, like any righteous action could be properly called holy and allowing someone outside of the body of Christ participate in the Lord’s Supper could be rightly called giving that which is holy to dogs.”*
About the Didache’s command:
let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

IMHO we could /should simply understand here that the consecrated food and drink are holy. And without any suggested limitations in time and location.

Wills (in Papal Sin) attributes that custom to a belief in the bread as a sign of the unity of believers.

The custom you’re specifically speaking about here is quite possibly the *fermentum, *specially conceived to mean that distinct congregations are in communion. .

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) . .
The Apostolic Tradition then speaks loudly against the former persuasion. Doesn’t it ?

its seems that here you are merely asserting that the early church variations went to form and not substance, but that seems to be merely begging the question.

The very fact that the Mark-Matthew line and the Paul-Luke line are generally seen as reflecting probably two liturgical schools ( as such, issues of developments), tells us that variations were possible in the very apostolic time within the Church. She decided that the overall picture of the four accounts was substance to be normatively accepted.

In order to agree with your assessment I would have to first believe that there is a trustworthy body out there somewhere that could serve as a referee…there are quite a few bodies that want to claim that they should be the referee, but I haven’t seen one that has demonstrated that it should be trusted

And you are perfectly right IMHO that accepting a referee without trusting his legitimacy is not viable .
Add that there are quite a few million fellows out there that want each, de facto, claim they should be the boundaries drawing referee ( often while declaring we need no referee at all) . IMHO the absence of a referee, or trusting an individual believer ot of those millions as such, are also not viable options.

Well according to Hebrews 10:22 it is our hearts that are sprinkled…with that benefit there doesn’t seem to be a need to ingest blood (which, of course, which doesn’t seem consistent with the OT prohibition against consuming blood

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. Baptism, thanks to Christ’s blood, purifies us from sin. The distribution of blood establishing the New Covenant appears to be at the Last Supper.

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

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 !

The phenomenology of the event overcomes dietary costumes.

 

[Radical]

The consensus on divinity was precarious indeed in that generation.
What a striking contrast with centuries and centuries of Eucharistic peace !

Why should we liken a situation at the very eve of a terrible upheaval, to a doctrinal issue which did not produce any serious disputation in the West in the whole of the first millennium ?

B/c we can liken the 250 years of peace (before the upheaval) on the divinity issue to the “centuries and centuries of Eucharistic peace”.

It must have been mainly through liturgies .that a deep rooted and at the same time kept in harmony belief would flourish . If that equilibrium was unstable, then it took a whole millennium to discover that, and then only in the West.

It is also that (IMHO) the additions to the apostolic teaching occured in a different way wrt the divinity and the RBP. In the divinity issue, b/c of the nature of the matter, the assertion of one view necessarily ruled out the possibility of the other view. In the Eucharist issue, the assertion of a RBP need exclude a symbolic interpretation and vice versa. As a result, it seems that the various views could become more and more detailed w/o triggering an unavoidable conflict (of the same magnitude).

You know that I know that, and you also know what I mean by Apostolic

I know, but that doesn’t mean that I am mature enough not to have a bit of fun with it.

What I probably fail to see are early practices which are incompatible with a RP thought. Whereas we can see practices which are hardly compatible with a NRP mindset.

This is in part explained in the fact the the NRP(today) is a “minimalist” approach and the RBP (today) is a very inclusive approach…

 

[pneuma07]

It is not as if I am suggesting that the doctrine spread out like a conquering army and that Antioch would have had to be won and secured before Jerusalem could be put under seige and that it would have to be taken before Alexandria could be attacked. I don’t know of any scholars who have suggested that sort of development of the doctrine. I believe that Ben Witherington and Garry Wills would be scholars that hold compatible views to mine wrt a RBP corruption being introduced. Edward Kilmartin is a scholar who views the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasts this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”
.

These seem indeed to be viable possible lines for NRP scholars to propose

It may be your suspicion, but it isn’t mine.

I’m interested in what you believe, but no less in why you do.

Specifically, the ignatian Eucharist has validity coming from bishops. Precisely as the CC proposes.
Why should I believe that Ignatius has an Anabaptist Eucharistic vision then, considering that for him Anabaptists do not even have the Eucharist ? ( this does not mean that for catholics all protestant Lord’s Supper have no value)

…and I cannot see a picture of the primitive Church as encouraging people to have a significant focus on anyone but Christ (see the whole of the NT regarding the significance of Mary) What is one to do when (they feel that) the hierarchy has led so badly? Pretending that all is well and submitting to error doesn’t seem to be a legitimate option

I say Amen to the last sentence.
If I get, drawing lines and boundaries by oneself became a necessity, since the Church derailed. If so IMHO there is a petition principii here. Maybe all of us have ours.

On the mentioned point, it escapes me how mariology subtracts to the specifically Christian, ie the Incarnation of Our Lord.

I don’t see how it hurts it either. In the context of the whole of the gospel of John, belief in Christ is the clear and repeated means of gaining eternal life. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t even get a mention in a gospel which was written so that its audience might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing one would receive life in his name. Now, you no doubt, believe that a mention is not needed b/c the reference to the Lord’s Supper in the Bof Life passage is so obvious…but I see the obviousness going the other way.

Exactly ! In the context of the whole of the gospel of John, belief in Christ is the clear and repeated means of gaining eternal life. It is said quite clearly in several passages.
John really did not need IMHO a further obscure and so peculiar passage to just pass that leit motiv of his.

nor would I ascribe that meaning to it…I would describe it as whoever accepts (eats and drinks) the benefit of the offering of my body and the pouring out of my blood (for the forgiveness of sins) has eternal life. With the Lord’s Supper a strong object lesson is given…the breaking and distribution of the bread demonstrated what was about to happen to his body and how the benefits of that breaking would be distributed amongst all believers. The strong object lesson was better served (in the greek telling of it) by the use of the present tense.

Nevertheless His Body will not be broken on the Cross.

And He does not give each of us a small portion of His Body on the Cross. He gives Himself to each of us, doesn’t He ?

On top of that, if the broken bread, as a whole, is a mere symbol of His Body, the single pieces are mere symbols of pieces of His Body. Or, alternatively, mere pieces of a mere symbol of His Body. We could be tempted to eat the largest possible loaf.

(If a statue is a symbol of a person, a piece of the statue is a symbol of a piece of a person. Or maybe a piece of a symbol of a person.)

 

[pneuma07]

This is what I had said earlier: …*verse 51 is a cryptic promise to give his body as a sacrifice for our sins. Verses 53-58 teach, in figurative language, of our need to have complete faith in him…the figures foreshadow the Lord’s Supper where the elements are the visible embodiments of these figures. *
I think that I am still at the same place.
.

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.

You have lost me with the point you are trying to make here. The last half of the paragraph reads:
For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

From that it seems that Iggy is saying that he longs to die and go to the Father…he has no desire for the pleasures of this life or for its food. It is hard to attribute to him any particular belief wrt a presence in the Eucharist as the obiter dicta contains portions that are so figurative/flowery that it is hard to say where the “literal” starts and stops.
again, it is hard to attribute to him any particular belief wrt a presence in the Eucharist as “medicine of immortality” doesn’t specify any sort of particular presence

Yes. And he probably also desires the Eucharist ( the bread of God and His blood) , which is an anticipation of heavenly life.

 

[pneuma07]

again, it is hard to attribute to him any particular belief wrt a presence in the Eucharist as “medicine of immortality” doesn’t specify any sort of particular presence.

IMHO the expression “ medicine of immortality” does not point to a mere symbol. Wouldn’t you agree that we could consider it a hint of RP ?

 

[pneuma07]

and IIRC correctly, my response was that, from his language (ie “we should”) one can see that Augustine was explaining how his audience should understand the requirement and not (just) how Jesus’s audience should have undertsood that requirement

And the teaching does indeed concern his audience and us. The situational equivocation with Jesus, which is remembered elsewhere in his works, did not.

Well, here are three quotes from Augustine’s OCD III arranged in an order to deal with your objection:

“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure,…

Already dealt with as situational equivocation.

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

Nothing to object to here: error is according to the flesh.

…but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many,…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

Despite the rearrangement, I believe that they remain true to Augustine’s understanding (and wrt John 6 establish the equations).

He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage”. The carnal approach in Augustine, IMHO, is precisely this one: signs not acting, not perceived as signs.

A figurative sentence is likened to a signum. What it signifies is likened to a res, or thing.
Understanding literally a figurative sentence, means not understanding it is a signum, used to let us understand the res. This is carnal. We stop at the signum, and believe that it is the res , or in other words take it instead of the res.

Passing from words to objects this has the following parallel:
I look at an object , which is a signum, but I don’t understand that what I see is just the signum and that I have to look beyond the signum. I have to see the res.
So if I look at the Eucharistic bread and see just bread , and do not accept that that is just the signum , designed to let me “see” the res , His Body, this is carnal.

This is IMHO what those not very easy chapters of Book III of De Christiana Doctrina tell us.

quoting and giving him the title of “doctor” does not give the modern Catholic Church any proprietary interest in Augustine or in his theology.
That might be so, but it begs the question as to whether Augustine would equate what is called the Catholic Church with the catholic church. I can’t imagine that the ECFs would have envisioned that Christ’s body could be selling its offices or trading in grace as if it was a common commodity. Your Augustinian reply is based on the assumption that the CC is to be trusted in all matters, but IMHO the high expectations of the typical ECF would cause him to reject that assumption once he looked back on the history of what is called the CC.

If Augustine could believe the CC no longer, he would not believe Scriptures any more.

He would see sins in the Church in any time, and in 2010 AD . So does B16.

He would also see in 2010 a brother of his in the episcopate pouring his blood under a knife to bear witness to the Resurrected one in Asia Minor, and another one taking immediately his place.

looks like you’ve got your hands full…nicely done.
Nope, I wouldn’t pretend to have anything of quality to pass on. It’s an interesting generation…their outlook is so very different from our own (if you think my generation of protestants is bad about refusing to accept anything on the basis of an authority’s statement, wait to you see the reluctance of my daughters’ generation )…tis a good thing I am always right, otherwise they wouldn’t listen to a thing that I have to say.
God bless you

I already see now reluctance in accepting my authority. Children of any age seem to be persuaded they know better than their parents, and that what we tell them after all is instrumental.
At three they tell you most sincerely “Daddy, you are wrong”. They know better.

 

[pneuma07]

Understood…so many of your brethren in the RBP camp do…and I think my line of argument was initiated in response to one such claim

Just my way of saying we have probably hit a wall and its time to move on…Cheers

Fine. I apologize for my verbosity.

Let’s move on then.

Thanks for the exchange

See you on the forum.

God bless you.

 

[Radical]

Fine. I apologize for my verbosity.

sorry, I wasn’t clear…I was just suggesting we move on wrt that one fine point…I note that you were looking forward to a response on some other points and I will be happy to provide my opinion (and I hadn’t noticed any verbosity, yet, on your part).

Thanks for the exchange

See you on the forum.

well, hopefully I’ll still see you on this thread

God bless you

 

[Radical]

IMHO the expression “ medicine of immortality” does not point to a mere symbol. Wouldn’t you agree that we could consider it a hint of RP ?

Yes, I would say that that choice of words (and others such words from Iggy) hint at a RP…a little less so at a RBP.

 

[Radical]

Already dealt with as situational equivocation.

OK…we’ve probably hit a wall on that point too.

A figurative sentence is likened to a signum. What it signifies is likened to a res, or thing.
Understanding literally a figurative sentence, means not understanding it is a signum, used to let us understand the res. This is carnal. We stop at the signum, and believe that it is the res , or in other words take it instead of the res.

Passing from words to objects this has the following parallel:
I look at an object , which is a signum, but I don’t understand that what I see is just the signum and that I have to look beyond the signum. I have to see the res.
So if I look at the Eucharistic bread and see just bread , and do not accept that that is just the signum , designed to let me “see” the res , His Body, this is carnal.

This is IMHO what those not very easy chapters of Book III of De Christiana Doctrina tell us.

where I think that you go wrong with this analysis is in missing this bit (which is now in bold) from what I quoted from Augustine:

*…but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many,…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 *

Augustine is not talking about the mistake that you describe with “the Eucharistic bread and see just bread , and do not accept that that is just the signum”…instead he is talking about taking the sign (bread) for the thing that is signified by it (Christ’s body)

I already see now reluctance in accepting my authority. Children of any age seem to be persuaded they know better than their parents, and that what we tell them after all is instrumental.
At three they tell you most sincerely “Daddy, you are wrong”. They know better.

at three already? my oldest was exactly like that…As Peter once said, make every effort to add to your faith…self-control; and to self-control, perserverance

 

[pneuma07]

OK…we’ve probably hit a wall on that point too.

where I think that you go wrong with this analysis is in missing this bit (which is now in bold) from what I quoted from Augustine:

…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

Augustine is not talking about the mistake that you describe with “the Eucharistic bread and see just bread , and do not accept that that is just the signum”…instead he is talking about taking the sign (bread) for the thing that is signified by it (Christ’s body)

at three already? my oldest was exactly like that…As Peter once said, make every effort to add to your faith…self-control; and to self-control, perserverance

Dear Radical,

I owe your kindness a last post on this thread.

BTW. Sometimes walls fall. Have you ever been in Berlin ?

Yes he’s just talking about taking the signs for the things: signa pro rebus accipere.

Judge please this try of mine to explain why IMHO these words do not mean what you appear to see in them.

This Book III of De Chirstiana Doctrina is about literal versus figurative.

Words and sentences are signa. Through their significatio we get the thing, the res in and beyond them.

Let’s go back to your quotation:

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.

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.

Going on in the Book, the opposite case is also analysed, about people understanding as figurative what is literal.

We can read there:
*
if an erroneous opinion has taken possession of the mind, men think that whatever Scripture asserts contrary to this must be figurative.
Now Scripture asserts nothing but the Catholic faith, in regard to things past, future, and present.*

With which I conclude the present contributions, even if you’re making interesting points ( I appreciated in particular the “minimalist NRP” suggestion ).

I’d read with pleasure your comments on the Passover New Covenant, on what left for us Revelation and on viable referees.
And on the “divided mere symbols” argument, which is new for me. I owe you the inspiration for that. Tell me please whether it does not hold water and therefore I …owe you little for that.

See you .
God bless you and yours

 

[Radical]

Why should I believe that Ignatius has an Anabaptist Eucharistic vision then, considering that for him Anabaptists do not even have the Eucharist ?

You shouldn’t…but not having an Anabaptist Eucharistic vision does not equate to having a RBP vision…and that is what I am saying that we can’t be certain about

If I get, drawing lines and boundaries by oneself became a necessity, since the Church derailed. If so IMHO there is a petition principii here.

Maybe, maybe not. It could be worded that since the Roman Church has derailed, another more trustworthy Church had to draw the lines…either way, is it any more a petition principii than: the hierarchy of the CC is to draw the lines and boundaries b/c the authority to do so rests solely in it.

Maybe all of us have ours

yes, I believe assumptions are par for the course in matters of faith

On the mentioned point, it escapes me how mariology subtracts to the specifically Christian, ie the Incarnation of Our Lord.

yes, our perspectives seem particularly at odds wrt to that matter…I guess the simplest way of expressing it is that; if one makes a statue of Mary, then it is just that, a statue of Mary and not a statue of Christ. If one kneels before a statue of Mary, then one is doing just that, kneeling before an image of Mary and not of Christ. If one contemplates the holiness of Mary, then one is contemplating the holiness of Mary and not the holiness of Christ (even if one argues that Mary had to be so holy b/c Christ was so holy…it is still Mary’s holiness one is contemplating)

Exactly ! In the context of the whole of the gospel of John, belief in Christ is the clear and repeated means of gaining eternal life. It is said quite clearly in several passages.
John really did not need IMHO a further obscure and so peculiar passage to just pass that leit motiv of his.

I don’t know why the author was inspired to state it X times as opposed to X-1 times.

Nevertheless His Body will not be broken on the Cross.

And He does not give each of us a small portion of His Body on the Cross. He gives Himself to each of us, doesn’t He ?

I would say that he gave his entire body as a sacrifice for each of us (as opposed to “to each of us”)

(If a statue is a symbol of a person, a piece of the statue is a symbol of a piece of a person. Or maybe a piece of a symbol of a person.)

Statues are symbols b/c of their physical resemblance to the person…the bread is a symbol for other reasons and so it doesn’t work the same way…I know of no memorialist who views the piece of bread in his hand as a symbol of a body part of Christ. Consider a flag (which is the symbol of Canada)…a piece of that flag does not represent a province or a territory within the whole.

I underline that my present argument is that the”what if” game about the formulations of the Institution is not symmetric. One word between This and Body-my would have sufficed to “defuse” RP once for all. . The opposite is not IMHO true.

understood and as long I as I have communicated that adding one word or adding twenty words is not a significant difference (both being a triffling effort for God), then I have nothing to add.

But now I do not get whether you consider the tales of the Insitution frustratingly unspecified/imprecise or clear to the point of obviousness.

Both I guess. To me it is clear to the point of obviousness…I don’t know how one could seriously think that Christ was speaking of a RBP. That being said, I must acknowledge that very intelligent individuals (such as yourself) see it very differently. As such, although it is clear and obvious to me, it is frustrating that God didn’t say it in a fashion that would be clear and obvious for all.

Catholics do not believe BTW that an ECF was protected from teaching error.

understood…I was being rather brief in my remark…and, as a result, less than accurate

Yours is not IMHO a mere rewording of is a “frustratingly unspecified” text all that God left us through His Revelation ?

Because of its seeming implicit assumption ( that what we are speaking about is a text, or a corpus of texts, written or possibly oral) a catholic could answer YES to your formulation.

I wasn’t trying to imply such…my focus was on the “reliable” part. God may have left more than the text, but has that extra-biblical thing, if it did exist, been preserved for us in a reliable form?

Looking forward to your own answers to both, with the above specifications.

I hope I answered them