Literal or Symbolic?...

[Anna_Scott]

Very quickly Lyrikal, but you seem to apply “once saved always saved” to the Catholic Church as, “once right always right”. And remeber OSAS have their scriptural foundation claim also as CC does. Anyways, many people find it “attractive” intelectually to belong to a One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal Church, even though it is by Her say so .

Good morning, David,
You must feel like a pinata by now. :blackeye: I know what it’s like to have nearly everyone on a thread disagree with you. It’s happened often to me, especially when discussing issues like Peter and the Keys, and the validity of Anglican orders—not that I want to open those issues up again at the moment.

I am curious about something. You list your religious denomination as “Protestant, raised Catholic.” Were you a well catechized Catholic? Just wondering how you made the leap from the “Real Presence” of the Catholic Mass to “Remembrance, only”? ----if you want to answer–no pressure. You’ve taken enough heat.

Still hopeful you will answer post #572 and post #586 (which repeats some of 572).

Hang in there, my friend.

Peace,
Anna

 

[pablope]

There is a HUGE difference between someone saying “I am the door” or “I am the vine” or “I am the bread” and someone actually taking that bread and saying “This IS my body”. You see, “I am the bread” is just a metaphor by itself. If Jesus didn’t take bread and say “This is my body”, we would have all agreed that the bread is symbolic. BUT Jesus did NOT take anything else, besides bread and wine, and claim it to be His Body and Blood. All the other things were clearly metaphoric since He left it at that. He took bread and claimed it is His Body. He NEVER took a door and claim it to be His Body. There is a huge difference there. This is such an old argument, I am surprised that people are still using it today. It has been refuted numerous times.

THEY ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD HIM LITERALLY. They NEVER once, EVER, EVER, EVER understood Jesus to be speaking figuratively.
This is from my blog:

John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

“You have no bucket to draw with, how can you get this living water?” (understood Him LITERALLY)
“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (understood Him LITERALLY)
“You are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?” (understood Him LITERALLY)
“It has taken 46 years to build this Temple and will you raise it up in 3 days?” (understood Him LITERALLY)
“Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” (understood Him LITERALLY)

ALL of the above are from the Gospel of John.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (understood Him FIGURATIVELY??)

The same way the others (Samaritan woman, Nicodemus, Jews, etc.) were carnal minded and understood Jesus LITERALLY.

The issue, to me, isn’t how the Jews understood Jesus. When reading the Gospel of John as a whole, we see a pattern that they would understand Jesus LITERALLY every single time. The ones that I listed were not the only ones. There are plenty more but there really is no need to provide them. Those that I listed should suffice.

So what is the issue? The issue is: WHAT did Jesus mean? Not only what, but HOW did Jesus want us to take the flesh eating and blood drinking statements? SPIRITUALLY. This is where people miss the bingo. Jesus wasn’t speaking LITERALLY neither was He speaking FIGURATIVELY. Literally would mean to chop His body up and eat Him as He was in front of them. Figuratively would mean, well…you can insert anything you desire here. Spiritually understood? This one requires the answer to what Jesus meant with regards to the other answers.

“It has taken 46 years to build this Temple and you will you raise it up in 3 days?” (Jesus meant it spiritually. They understood Him LITERALLY. Yet notice, even though Jesus meant this spiritually, there is still a LITERAL reality to it. The reality is, that He will rise in 3 days because the temple is His Body.)
“Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” (They understood Him LITERALLY. They thought He meant that He is claiming that He literally came down from heaven like superman from the sky. Jesus meant this spiritually. Yet, notice, even spiritually understood, there is still a LITERAL REALITY TO IT. Jesus still came down from heaven because He is God. THAT IS LITERAL but the LITERAL must be understood SPIRITUALLY.)

Very well said, Lyrikal…

And this is what I have observed too…that what many non-RP believers you do not seem to realize, is that when God/Jesus gave a command in the Gospels or Bible, it was literal. Nothing symbolic about it. It was direct and well understood.

And when Jesus said “Take and eat my body”…it is a command…nothing symbolic but literal.

And it seems the only one being taken to be symbolic is the partaking of His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

Thank you for your response.

We can call it whatever, but the issue is not in the name. I just said “Protestant” because there are some Protestants who believe you can lose your salvation and some who believe you can’t.

I don’t think anyone can deny that there are some Protestants (or Christians if you will) who believe in OSAS and some who don’t. The question is, who should I believe? Who should I follow? They both claim to be following the Holy Spirit and both claim that the Spirit is their interpreter; who should I follow and why?

Actually, since this is a Eucharist thread, let’s forget that question. Let me ask something that is more in context with this thread…

Some Protestants/Christians such as yourself and Radical hold to a symbolic/figurative/or perhaps spiritual view of what the Eucharist is. There are some Protestants/Christians such as Lutherans who believe that the Eucharist is the RBP of Christ. Both types of Christians claim to have the truth and both claim that the Holy Spirit lead them to such a view. Now we have a division. Along comes Lyrikal, a Catholic who is perhaps considering Protestanism. Lyrikal looks at the two views and thinks, “Hmm, they both claim the Holy Spirit as their teacher. Which one has the right view?”

So David, how can I tell who has the right view? JWs claim their view is from the Holy Spirit and as do Mormons. Why should I trust your view on anything and not theirs? How can you prove to me that your view is from the Holy Spirit? Where does your authority come from? Which one of you should I go with?

Also, you seem to have an interest in the Early Church. Do you think there was a such thing as private interpretations? Do you think the Church would tolerate someone coming up with something that is not found in the Apostolic teachings or tolerate someone who teaches contrary to what the Church teaches? The answer is yes, there were such people. Do you know what they were called? Heretics. I am not calling you a heretic but I am pointing out to you that the Church saw these types of people as heretics.

The authority belonged to the Church. When there were different views on doctrine, the Church didn’t say: “Well, read your Bible on your own and hopefully you come up with the right answer for you. Good luck!” No, they held a council and settled the matter. The Bishops settled the matter (Christ’s nature, Divinity, Trinity, Canon of Scripture, etc.). And I’m not talking about a council where several pastors from one church get together and settle a matter. I’m talking about a Council with many Bishops from different churches around coming together to settle matters. Is your church capable of doing this today? Do you have valid Bishops who can trace their ordination back to the Apostles? You may think that isn’t something important, but the Early Church saw that as a NECESSITY and something essential in order to have valid Bishops.

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

We’re talking 110 AD here, David. This type of practice is very foreign to a lot of Protestant/Christian churches. Most of the time I hear Protestants complaining to Catholics about how we submit to the authority of the our Bishops. Why should we do otherwise? This is the practice of the Early Church. THEY have the authority; not you, not me, and not anyone else who is a layman.

So why should I trust your view, or Radical’s, or anyone’s and ignore these Bishops? When I say Bishops, I mean the universal beliefs of the Church throughout its 2000 years of history which was given to us by Jesus and the Apostles and passed on to Bishops all over the world.

God bless.

I believe a council was called and for the most part half the views were shutout, and no consensus was reached , unlike the first one or even second one.

 

[Nicea325]

Good point .However, could it be that as a teacher, Him being a “light”, a “shepherd”, a “vine” are easily grasped metaphors. But this eating flesh, if it were figurative, would represent what, His death ? What rabbi prophet would prophecy His death ? That would be weird for a rabbi/teacher, miracle worker to say, particularly when they were hoping for real Messiah, to take the Davidic throne, kick the Romans out etc. .Very weird, hence He also said, “Like you can’t take my death (hard saying), how are you gonna take my ascension?” I get your point, but I believe it can be explained by the difficult context, not the literal eating alone.
Perhaps but symbolism follows, “which is broken for you” and, “of the new testament which is shed for you”. We all literally believe His blood is shed for this new covenant .If He would have done this AFTER His death, you might have something, but before it actually happened, lends to figurative. To be literal, He would have said, “This is my blood which will be shed for the upcoming new covenant”.

David it does not matter how hard you try to present your belief,the bottomline is very simple: The word…is…means exactly what it means…is. You are basically stating God cannot or would not give Himself in two simple elements.That is arrogance David.

 

[Radical]

David it does not matter how hard you try to present your belief,the bottomline is very simple: The word…is…means exactly what it means…is. You are basically stating God cannot or would not give Himself in two simple elements.That is arrogance David.

Oh please…when Jesus said whoever did the will of his Father IS his mother, brother etc. then, all of a sudden your “the word…is…means exactly what it means” approach is conveniently forgotten. That inconsistency is self-serving. You are sure quick to label others when your approach leaves so much to be desired.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh please…when Jesus said whoever did the will of his Father IS his mother, brother etc. then, all of a sudden your “the word…is…means exactly what it means” approach is conveniently forgotten. That inconsistency is self-serving. You are sure quick to label others when your approach leaves so much to be desired.

Inconsistency and self-serving? And there is nothing desirable about your ramblings-trust me.You a mere finite creature knows exactly what God would not do or do? Please spare me your carnal knowledge Radical. No Catholic here cares about your self-made theology…get it through your senses. We will not and do not accept your man-made novelty of a symbolic Eucharist. Period!

 

[lyrikal]

Oh please…when Jesus said whoever did the will of his Father IS his mother, brother etc. then, all of a sudden your “the word…is…means exactly what it means” approach is conveniently forgotten. That inconsistency is self-serving. You are sure quick to label others when your approach leaves so much to be desired.

Our belief in the “IS” with regards to the Eucharist is found in Patristic writings.

Can you name one Ealry Church Father who saw the “is” with regards to brothers and sisters being literal? If so, then you have yourself a valid argument.

Difference is: One belief of “is” is historical while the other is clearly symbolic. If it wasn’t clear, we’d expect to find one or two Fathers taking it literally.

We interpret Scripture based on Tradition.

 

[lyrikal]

I believe a council was called and for the most part half the views were shutout, and no consensus was reached , unlike the first one or even second one.

Hi Daivd,

Can you name which council(s) you’re talking about?

Also, can you answer the questions that I provided with regards how I would discern which Protestant has Spirit as his/her interpreter?

Please and thank you.

God bless.

 

[Radical]

Our belief in the “IS” with regards to the Eucharist is found in Patristic writings.

…Difference is: One belief of “is” is historical while the other is clearly symbolic. If it wasn’t clear, we’d expect to find one or two Fathers taking it literally.

We interpret Scripture based on Tradition.

right…so you have properly moved away from the extremely poor “IS means IS” argument to the “we know IS actually means IS when the ECFs say so” argument…which works if the audience thinks that the ECFs have some special authority wrt the interpretation of scripture. I don’t, so from over here your appeal to authority falls flat…now, stop distracting me from responding to your earleir 7 posts …I’m only a little over half way done.

 

[david_ruiz]

Our belief in the “IS” with regards to the Eucharist is found in Patristic writings.

Can you name one Ealry Church Father who saw the “is” with regards to brothers and sisters being literal? If so, then you have yourself a valid argument.

Difference is: One belief of “is” is historical while the other is clearly symbolic. If it wasn’t clear, we’d expect to find one or two Fathers taking it literally.

We interpret Scripture based on Tradition.

Quickly- I believe most of your quotes of ECF were late 3rd and 4th Century.The few before that are as debateable as scripture itself. But yes, from 4th c on, very strong in the literal .Hardly a good historical connection to the apostles. From the 4th C on till 14th C,CC RP was the norm. So you had a strong milenium and nonCC communion is about there also.History is not our back breaking criteria.

 

[benedictus2]

right…so you have properly moved away from the extremely poor “IS means IS” argument to the “we know IS actually means IS when the ECFs say so” argument…which works if the audience thinks that the ECFs have some special authority wrt the interpretation of scripture. I don’t, so from over here your appeal to authority falls flat…now, stop distracting me from responding to your earleir 7 posts …I’m only a little over half way done.

During the discourse on the bread of life (the passover the year before His crucifixion), His disciples left, except for the Apostles.

David Ruiz said that to understand whether it is figurative or not, we need to understand whtat the Apostles understood. With me so far?

Did they think Jesus was talking figuratively or did they also believe what the others who left believed.

The key to understanding what Jesus meant (figurative or not) is to find out what the Apostles understood.

The Apostles passed their understanding to the ECF’s. So yes, the ECF’s understaning count because they were handed down by the Apostles. Later some may have held heretical understandings.

Notice how in the early Church, the Real Presence was never questioned. They had councils for settling the Trinity and the two natures of Christ but that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ was just an accepted fact. It was only 1000 years later when the reality was question by Berangarius of Tours. And he was branded a heretic.

So if the Protestants were to turn up in the first century among the apostles and their successors and start claiming what they do now, they would be branded heretics by the apostles and their successors too.

 

[david_ruiz]

During the discourse on the bread of life (the passover the year before His crucifixion), His disciples left, except for the Apostles.

David Ruiz said that to understand whether it is figurative or not, we need to understand whtat the Apostles understood. With me so far?

Did they think Jesus was talking figuratively or did they also believe what the others who left believed.

The key to understanding what Jesus meant (figurative or not) is to find out what the Apostles understood.

The Apostles passed their understanding to the ECF’s. So yes, the ECF’s understaning count because they were handed down by the Apostles. Later some may have held heretical understandings.

Notice how in the early Church, the Real Presence was never questioned. They had councils for settling the Trinity and the two natures of Christ but that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ was just an accepted fact. It was only 1000 years later when the reality was question by Berangarius of Tours. And he was branded a heretic.

So if the Protestants were to turn up in the first century among the apostles and their successors and start claiming what they do now, they would be branded heretics by the apostles and their successors too.

I am wondering if CC RP is so “developed”, that you leave no room for anything but and “either/or” dilemma, that I do not think you had in the first century. You had no heretics over this, perhaps because persecution and death kept them from idle time to pondering anything beyond unity in remembrance and thanksgiving. And this unity had a peculiarity foreign to me, for it was quite possible a unity in the literal face of death. They almost certainly did not have processions parading and adoring a gold monstrance. Tell me, would you tolerate a brother who believed in a symbolic remembrance, and you both are about to be tossed to the lions after being arrested at the same Sunday service ? It has been suggested that if there was a variance of understanding of just what constituted eating, first century Christians still may have eaten at the same “table” .

 

[david_ruiz]

During the discourse on the bread of life (the passover the year before His crucifixion), His disciples left, except for the Apostles.

David Ruiz said that to understand whether it is figurative or not, we need to understand whtat the Apostles understood. With me so far?

Did they think Jesus was talking figuratively or did they also believe what the others who left believed.

The key to understanding what Jesus meant (figurative or not) is to find out what the Apostles understood.

The Apostles passed their understanding to the ECF’s. So yes, the ECF’s understaning count because they were handed down by the Apostles. Later some may have held heretical understandings.

Notice how in the early Church, the Real Presence was never questioned. They had councils for settling the Trinity and the two natures of Christ but that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ was just an accepted fact. It was only 1000 years later when the reality was question by Berangarius of Tours. And he was branded a heretic.

So if the Protestants were to turn up in the first century among the apostles and their successors and start claiming what they do now, they would be branded heretics by the apostles and their successors too.

You started out ok with the apostles and the need to determine their “position” .You determine that by what later successors believed. That is OK and can be “evidence”, but wouldn’t that be considered heresay and inadmissable in a determining court ? Fact is we both disagreed on what the apostles believed as per scripture ,and for sure we will disagree as per ECF’s, at least the earliest ECF’s. I do recall though that you were at least admitting that the jury was still out in John 6 and perhaps even at the Last Supper as far as what scripture says of the apostles understanding, which I thought was refreshing on your part. That was you wasn’t it ?

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

All those questions make the issue about as clear as Texas mud. :dts: Answering questions with questions is not really an answer; but “avoidance.”

I recognize avoidance, because I’ve seen it many times on the forums and have been guilty of the same on a few occasions, myself.

Anyway—You still haven’t actually answered my questions post #572.

As I asked before; how does John 6 tell us Jesus is speaking figuratively? And, if those to whom he spoke understood his words to be figurative; why did many of his disciples say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60) and then turn back and leave him (verse 66.)

John 6:52, the Jews disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This would be the perfect time for Christ to explain that He was speaking figuratively. Instead, Jesus said:

. . . ."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.** (John 6:54)
**
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (John 6:55)

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6:56)

As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (John 6:57)

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)

“True” is not a synonym for “figurative.” True food means true food. True drink means true drink.

Jesus was very clear in saying, ".“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

In other passages of Scripture, Jesus taught the crowds using parables, and then revealed the meaning of the parables to his disciples–privately.

In the case of John 6, after Jesus spoke to the crowd about eating his body and drinking his blood; he did not explain a “parable” to the disciples. When the disciples said, 61"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" Jesus asked them, “Do you take offense at this?” 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe."

And what words of Spirit and life did Jesus speak: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:54); and “. . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

If consuming the Body and Blood of Christ was figurative, why did Jesus not explain this to the disciples in private, as He had explained the meaning of parables in the past? Jesus let the teaching stand telling them the words He had spoken are “spirit and life.” That teaching of consuming His Body and Blood was too difficult to accept for many of his disciples, who turned back and no longer walked with him (John 6:66.)

When you see “disciples” do not assume these include the twelve apostles. That is yes, there is a group of disciples in which are included the apostles. However, there is a separate group included in these disciples who “did not believe from the beginning”. At the end, Jesus has two separate groups, the unbelieving, departing disciples, and “the 12” who believed and remained .Believed what ? To eat Him ? Maybe, but probably not .That He was the Messiah and had the "words “of life ? Absolutely. How do we know ? Cause that is what scripture says (Peter), nothing more, nothing less. (Yet that is the most important, divine revelation one can ever have. It pales in comparison to revelation of what constitutes “eating”, though important) .Furthermore, scripture speaks figuratively in several other places of eating the “word” as meat ,or drinking it as milk. St. Augustine also speaks of this figurative eating.( Lest they descend upon us ravenously, there are other Augustine quotes which “seem” to allude to a literal eating, which Lyrikal and Radical have discussed at length. Regardless, Augustine quite succinctly and descriptively expounds a figurative eating also )…What did the others believe or not believe? Well the opposite of “the 12” .They did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah, and that he did not have the words of life,at least not the life they wanted. What do non-believers want but a carnal life, and they wanted a carnal Messiah, well at least one who was going to stick around(not be killed or ascend back to heaven) and feed their bellies, do great miracles, and maybe kick the Romans out ( was not Judas a “zionist”) The only ones who murmurred and found it a hard saying were these unbelievers for sure.You can not assume the apostles did this. This “eating” tripped” up the unbelievers. It alluded to His death (whether they thought of eating literally or figuratively) .Why else would he say to the unbelievers that he was going to ascend back to heaven also… Enough for now it’s late but John 6 has nothing to do with RP, everthing to do with the biggest question in the universe , whom is Jesus to the individual, does one believe in the creed ? And if you do, it is because you are drawn of the Father (the departing disciple were not) who reveals to you His son.Alleluia. …to be cont, with pleasure and Lord willing

 

[lyrikal]

right…so you have properly moved away from the extremely poor “IS means IS” argument to the “we know IS actually means IS when the ECFs say so” argument…

Nah, not a weak argument. You wanted to know how we distinguish between the two and I told you. We rely on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium. Kind of like the Early Church did things. So, if you think the Early Church Fathers/Bishops had weak ways of doing things…then I guess you should throw your Bible out. They used Tradition and some Councils to come up with the canon.

By the way, no one has “moved away from the extremely poor ‘IS means IS’ argument to the ‘we know IS actually means IS when the ECFs say so’ argument…”

Those two things are not to be separated. Nice try trying, though. I can at least give you some credit for trying …It’s simple really: The “IS” means IS because the Early Christians saw it that way.

How do YOU determine what “IS” is? Do you consider yourself to be the final authority to interpret Scripture?

which works if the audience thinks that the ECFs have some special authority wrt the interpretation of scripture. I don’t, so from over here your appeal to authority falls flat

So, who has the FINAL authority to interpret Scripture?

Where did the Canon of Scripture come from?

How many wills/natures does Christ have? And how did you come up with this number?

How do you know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

now, stop distracting me from responding to your earleir 7 posts …I’m only a little over half way done.

You are more than welcomed to either:

A.) Not answer this post
B.) Take as much time as you need to answer this post

I’m not counting.

 

[benedictus2]

I am wondering if CC RP is so “developed”, that you leave no room for anything but and “either/or” dilemma, that I do not think you had in the first century.

Actually, there was no dilemma in the first century, neither in the second nor in the succeeding years. Even in the 12th century, Berengarius was the only monk who proposed it and unlike the Arian, Nestorian, and all the other heresies, it did not spread.

JonNC quoted Luther who said he would rather go with the Pope and believe that there is only Christ’s blood left, rather than go with the fanatics who say there is only wine. So it seems that even up to the reformation, it was the fanatics who said that it was only bread and it was only wine.

To answer your question, just take a look at the two churches that have apostolic succession – the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. They are the two Churches that hold to the Real Presence.

The only difference is that Eastern Churches did not see the need to define the process or how it actually happens. They just affirm that it IS.

You had no heretics over this, perhaps because persecution and death kept them from idle time to pondering anything beyond unity in remembrance and thanksgiving.

Nope. At the time of the Arian, Nestorian and all the other heresies, the Catholic Church was itself still not out of persecution. And yet, the belief in the Real Presence was never questioned. Notice the term I used - the Catholic Church. There was no such thing as a Christian Church. The people were referred to as Christians but the Church was not called the Christian Church,

And this unity had a peculiarity foreign to me, for it was quite possible a unity in the literal face of death.

It was a unity that stemmed from the fact that Christ established only one Chur h.

They almost certainly did not have processions parading and adoring a gold monstrance.

For the record, the gold monstrance is just something to “house” the Lord in this form He has chosen – bread.

When we adore, we do not adore the monstrance but rather what the monstrance holds. If it were just monstrance, you would not find anyone adoring it.

Suspend your disbelief for a while and just imagine – what if it is true? What if this bread is indeed the One who died on the cross for you, the risen Christ, the Saviour of the World, the King of Heaven and Earth? What if that is all true?

How would you adore Him who now comes to you in the form of bread? He is right there before you. What would you do to show adoration of the God who died on the cross and triumphed over death – your death?
Is putting Him in a gold monstrance too much? What about the golden ark?

Is a procession too much for Him? Why? Does the president not go on parade? Why would a procession be over the top for the Son of God?

Tell me, would you tolerate a brother who believed in a symbolic remembrance, and you both are about to be tossed to the lions after being arrested at the same Sunday service ?

No. I would not tolerate you at all.

To tolerate means to put up with something you despise – to put up with something less than acceptable. If all I could do is tolerate others then I am far from being a Christian.

I would hope that I would do more than that. In such a situation, I would pray that God will give me the grace to give up my life for such a brother if it be God’s will. But since I am a wimp, I will need much grace for that. I would pray that God also give this brother the strength to endure this for the His sake.

It has been suggested that if there was a variance of understanding of just what constituted eating, first century Christians still may have eaten at the same “table” .

No, because Paul said one must not eat without discerning the Body. First century Christians were very particular as to who shared in the Eucharist. Those who were aspiring to be received into the Church were led away just before the Eucharist because they may not partake. Depending on the stage of the catechumen, some leave at certain times in the mass, others are allowed just outside the door. Until one has been fully received into the Church, one is now allowed even to sit through the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They were much stricter in those days.

 

[benedictus2]

You started out ok with the apostles and the need to determine their “position” .You determine that by what later successors believed. That is OK and can be “evidence”, but wouldn’t that be considered heresay and inadmissable in a determining court ?

So therefore the Bible is also hearsay? After all Paul was not exactly part of the 12. More to the point, the Bible was not compiled until the 3rd century so much of their determination would be according to you hearsay.

Or even just think of the OT. The books were not exactly written as they were happening. These things before they were written were passed on by word of mouth. So the OT – by your standard – is also hearsay.

Secondly, if that was hearsay then yours is thousands of times worse since your interpretation did not sprout until probably the 19th century. So what do you base yours in? Opinion? Fairy tale?

Fact is we both disagreed on what the apostles believed as per scripture ,and for sure we will disagree as per ECF’s, at least the earliest ECF’s.

Fact is you don’t have any facts to support you. The ECF’s are precisely that – Early Church Fathers. They succeeded to and were appointed by the apostles.

There is a general consensus among the ECFs that the Eucharist IS the Body of Christ.

I do recall though that you were at least admitting that the jury was still out in John 6 and perhaps even at the Last Supper as far as what scripture says of the apostles understanding, which I thought was refreshing on your part. That was you wasn’t it ?

No, never said that the jury is still out on the proper understanding of John 6.

What is to be determined is whether the Last Supper is indeed a legal Passover. There was no question that it was a Passover but not whether it was a legal Passover. If you look at the Synoptic account, it seems to say that it is indeed a Passover Meal which means that Jesus was killed on the Passover day.

But if you look at John’s account, it said that Christ was crucified at the time they were slaughtering the lambs for sacrifice, which means that Jesus was killed on the day prior to the Passover which is the day of preparation – the day when they make sure that no leaven is left in the house.

However, there is a case to be made for both the synoptics and John speaking with one voice. As a matter of fact, there was a Church father (can’t remember who) who said as much.

 

[lyrikal]

Quickly- I believe most of your quotes of ECF were late 3rd and 4th Century.The few before that are as debateable as scripture itself. But yes, from 4th c on, very strong in the literal .Hardly a good historical connection to the apostles. From the 4th C on till 14th C,CC RP was the norm. So you had a strong milenium and nonCC communion is about there also.History is not our back breaking criteria.

Several issues here…

First of all, do you believe that Doctrine can develop?

Second of all, if 3rd/4th century is late for you, are you aware that the Canon of Scripture was completed in the late 4th century?

Also, how many wills/natures did Christ have? Where did you come up with this number? Is it in the Bible? If so, where? If not, is it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers? If so, what’s the earliest mention of this? Are you aware that it was the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD) that dogmatized the fact that Christ has two wills? We’re talking LATE 7th CENTURY HERE.

With all that said, 3rd or 4th century all of a sudden doesn’t seem so late does it?

But, ALL of this assumes your argument that the RBP doctrine was invented in the 3rd/4th century. This is not so, David. It wasn’t invented in the 3rd/4th century the same way the canon of Scripture wasn’t invented in the late 4th century and also the same way that Christ having two wills wasn’t invented in the late 7th Century.

All of these doctrines (as well as every single Christian doctrine) were developed and more fully understood later on.

With all that said, I will post for you the earliest interpretations of John 6, Last Supper, and also passages about the RBP from the first 2-3 centuries.

In the meantime, can you post the earliest Church Father who believed in a symbolic Baptism and a symbolic Eucharist?

Grace and peace, David.

 

[Nicea325]

Quickly- I believe most of your quotes of ECF were late 3rd and 4th Century.The few before that are as debateable as scripture itself. But yes, from 4th c on, very strong in the literal .Hardly a good historical connection to the apostles. From the 4th C on till 14th C,CC RP was the norm. So you had a strong milenium and nonCC communion is about there also.History is not our back breaking criteria.

So the fact the quotes are 3rd and 4th century disproves what? Where are the overwhelming sources for the Trinity in the first 200 years? Since there exist more writings at a later date does it mean the Trinity is also questionable as a Truth? Would you also consider it hardly a good historical connection to the Apostles?

Non CC communion? Really? Sources please…no opinions. And a symbolic Eucharist from the get-go is definitely not on your side either,historicall speaking.

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical,

Hello
Re: This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Do you really think that Augustine is talking about something other than the Eucharist there?

yes, he is talking about how one eats Christ’s flesh. He said it was done figuratively and not literally. If one properly participates in a Eucharistic celebration, then one will eat the flesh of Christ in the process, but not in the way that you claim. One will eat the flesh of Christ in a figurative fashion at the Eucharist by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can eat His flesh.

I gave you about 10-15 posts (which I am sure you love ) of how John 6 (which is what Augustine is quoting here to talk about the above quote) is about the Eucharist. You counter with this OCD III passage as if it is the final authority of Augustine’s John 6 interpretation. You are convinced that there is nothing Eucharistic about it.

Your approach seems to be: if the Eucharist can (in any way) be connected to the passage, then the passage must have the Eucharist and only the Eucharist in mind. For Augustine it was : believe and you have already eaten. That is why he could say Peter ate Christ’s flesh on the day of the Bread of Life discourse. The Eucharist is one of many ways in which one’s belief is expressed. As a result, you should not be surprised if you are able to connect the “eating passages” to the Eucharist, but what you simply cannot do is show that the Eucharist is required for the eating (on the basis that it is the only way to eat Christ’s flesh). To repeat what should be obvious: The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

But first, let’s go back to OCD III. In our previous discussions, you kept clinging to the passage on OCD III to get the “final interpretation of what John 6 means according to Augustine.” It seemed like everything I showed Augustine connecting John 6 to the Eucharist, you would cling to the OCD III passage as if to say “John 6 isn’t only about the Eucharist for Augustine. As you see in OCD III, it is ‘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.’”

The reason I focus on OCD III is because that is where Augustine expressly interpreted what it was to eat the flesh of Christ. IMHO, what you do, is take a passage where Augustine used realistic wording, draw any connection that you can possibly make between that passage and the Eucharist, and then declare (by inferrence b/c there is no express statement) that the Eucharist is the one and only way in which Augustine envisioned that Christ’s flesh would be eaten. At that point you also err by presuming that a real bodily presence is in any way involved. It is assumption + inferrence + presumption = Augustine believed in a RBP.

What you failed to do is you failed to continue reading OCD III. If you had continued reading, you would have arrived at Augustine saying the following:
In OCD 3, 27, 38, Augustine says:
When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth.
TWO or MORE, Radical. NOT just one where we are to cling to it every single time someone brings up another interpretation.

Again, you need to read more carefully. You just quoted me saying: "“John 6 isn’t only about the Eucharist for Augustine”. That would mean that I see more than one thing under consideration… more than simply the Eucharist under consideration.

I have shown in many instances where John 6 is referring to the Eucharist and you cling to the OCD III passage for some reason. Now if there are two or more possible interpretations for Scripture passages for Augustine, how do you suppose we can know what other interpretations are? Perhaps by reading more passages about John 6 from Augustine other than just the OCD III.

I have always advocated that we should refer to all of what Augustine said (as opposed to the practice of having a few snippets from Augustine determine his meaning). There is a rule of interpretation that has general descriptions yielding to specific descriptions. In OCD III Augustine stated specifically what is meant by “eating Christ’s flesh”. B/c inferences are to be subordinate to express statements, any inference you draw must conform to that express statement. What you are trying to do is make the express statement conform to your inferences by trying to claim that OCD III is describing the Eucharist and only the Eucharist. Earlier, in an attempt to do just that, you claimed that your Eucharist was a figurative (as opposed to a literal) manner of eating Christ’s flesh. You had to do that b/c Augustine clearly stated that one eats Christ’s flesh figuratively (and not literally). I am afraid that I simply can’t take that claim of yours seriously…it is too at odds with what the CC and Catholics claim for their Eucharist.