Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Contarini]

Bob,

I think the problem here is with our definition of “physical” vs. “spiritual.” I am not at all convinced that transubstantiation is not a “spiritual” interpretation. “Substance” without “accidents” doesn’t seem at all like what I mean by “physical.” In normal modern speech, “physical” means “perceptible by the senses when the senses are operating properly.” It seems to me that Protestants sometimes understand Catholics to believe (perhaps because many Catholics do believe) that the senses don’t perceive the Eucharist because the senses are somehow deluded. That is certainly not what Aquinas taught (in the Summa; the hymn “Adoro Te devote” can be read that way, which is one reason that many people think it isn’t by Aquinas, though it’s also possible that he was using somewhat imprecise devotional language and could have written the hymn without contradicting himself). So if the senses are functioning properly and discerning what they are supposed to discern, but the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood is just not the sort of thing that can be perceived by the senses, I think the resistance of [many] Catholics to speaking of a “spiritual presence” is misguided.

Your reliance on the literal sense of “trogo” is also mistaken, I think, because the orthodox Catholic view does not hold that the Body of Christ is broken by the teeth. (The retractation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century does say this, and ironically Luther agreed with the retractation, taking a more literal view of the Eucharist than the later medieval and modern Catholic Church.)

I think that I understand why you want to deny that the Real Presence is “spiritual,” and I think (though I could be wrong) that I also deny what you deny when you deny this!

My own decisive difference with the Calvinist position (and agreement with the Catholic position) pertains to Eucharistic adoration. While I share some of the Orthodox and Protestant (and post-Vatican-II Catholic?) concerns about a piety focused on extraliturgical adoration as opposed to liturgical celebration and sacramental communion, I emphatically do not believe that worshiping Christ in the Eucharist can be seen as idolatrous. I have no problem genuflecting before the Host as an act of latreia to Christ present sacramentally.

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

Bob,

I think the problem here is with our definition of “physical” vs. “spiritual.” I am not at all convinced that transubstantiation is not a “spiritual” interpretation. “Substance” without “accidents” doesn’t seem at all like what I mean by “physical.” In normal modern speech, “physical” means “perceptible by the senses when the senses are operating properly.” It seems to me that Protestants sometimes understand Catholics to believe (perhaps because many Catholics do believe) that the senses don’t perceive the Eucharist because the senses are somehow deluded. That is certainly not what Aquinas taught (in the Summa; the hymn “Adoro Te devote” can be read that way, which is one reason that many people think it isn’t by Aquinas, though it’s also possible that he was using somewhat imprecise devotional language and could have written the hymn without contradicting himself). So if the senses are functioning properly and discerning what they are supposed to discern, but the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood is just not the sort of thing that can be perceived by the senses, I think the resistance of [many] Catholics to speaking of a “spiritual presence” is misguided.

Your reliance on the literal sense of “trogo” is also mistaken, I think, because the orthodox Catholic view does not hold that the Body of Christ is broken by the teeth. (The retractation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century does say this, and ironically Luther agreed with the retractation, taking a more literal view of the Eucharist than the later medieval and modern Catholic Church.)

I think that I understand why you want to deny that the Real Presence is “spiritual,” and I think (though I could be wrong) that I also deny what you deny when you deny this!

My own decisive difference with the Calvinist position (and agreement with the Catholic position) pertains to Eucharistic adoration. While I share some of the Orthodox and Protestant (and post-Vatican-II Catholic?) concerns about a piety focused on extraliturgical adoration as opposed to liturgical celebration and sacramental communion, I emphatically do not believe that worshiping Christ in the Eucharist can be seen as idolatrous. I have no problem genuflecting before the Host as an act of latreia to Christ present sacramentally.

Edwin

There’s a lot to unpack here, Edwin, and I’ll try and re-read it and come up with some coherent responses. And I understand what you’re saying by ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’, But “If the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.(incarnation)” is readily to believe, then why would there be such a leap to believing in Christ’s true Body and blood in the Eucharist when He tells us to “eat His flesh” and “This is my body.”?

 

[Contarini]

There’s a lot to unpack here, Edwin, and I’ll try and re-read it and come up with some coherent responses. And I understand what you’re saying by ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’, But “If the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.(incarnation)” is readily to believe, then why would there be such a leap to believing in Christ’s true Body and blood in the Eucharist when He tells us to “eat His flesh” and “This is my body.”?

I would say that I do believe in Christ’s true body and blood in the Eucharist. But obviously it isn’t the same kind of thing as the Incarnation. Jesus was perceptible to the senses as a human being. Jesus is not present in the Eucharist under His natural dimensions. He is present sacramentally. And I have no problem saying that He is present “spiritually,” although I understand why we should be cautious with this given how the term could be misunderstood (as if His true glorified Body and Blood are not genuinely present under the physical forms of bread and wine, as I confess them to be).

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

I would say that I do believe in Christ’s true body and blood in the Eucharist. But obviously it isn’t the same kind of thing as the Incarnation. Jesus was perceptible to the senses as a human being. Jesus is not present in the Eucharist under His natural dimensions. He is present sacramentally. And I have no problem saying that He is present “spiritually,” although I understand why we should be cautious with this given how the term could be misunderstood (as if His true glorified Body and Blood are not genuinely present under the physical forms of bread and wine, as I confess them to be).

Edwin

And you being a theologian by trade, Edwin, (and well…me not being one! But definitely trying to learn a little more every day), you hold me in ‘Check’, but hopefully I still have my Queen and bishops still on the board!

True on what you’re saying on the Incarnation, I kind of rushed that out with out really thinking about it.

The Catholic belief (and of course, i’ll have to research it myself a little further) that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, **Soul, Divinity **of Christ…wouldn’t (and I could be wrong) that the “Soul and Divinity” part represents a spiritual aspect of Christ in the Eucharist?

More to come…have to put my kids to bed!

 

[orange_man]

This is why in John 6 Christ tells us “The flesh is of no avail.” Our "flesh"y sensory, human senses of sight, taste, feel hearing, smell will not be of use here, or of “no avail.” He is telling us to trust Him through faith that after the epiclesis the bread and wine TRULY become His Body and Blood and at the Last Supper that “This IS My Body.” Once again in the original Greek in John 6 the Greek word for “eats”(whomever “eats” my Flesh…) is “Trogo” which translated from the Greek is a physical chewing, gnawing or grinding and consuming with your teeth and mouth. Nothing “spiritual” about the use of “Trogo” in John 6. The word “Trogo” in John 6 is a physical reality, not a spiritual one.

Bob:

No disrespect … but this is I think the second time you made an absurd statement regarding scriptural interpretation. That is NOT the context the phrase “the flesh is no avail” is written in. Jesus was responding to the charge by His disciples that His statements regarding flesh and blood were bizarre (or as they put it “hard teaching”). The context is obvious and cannot be reasonably disputed.

Just because you looked up the meaning of the Koine Greek Trogo doesn’t make you St. Augustine. If you notice no protestant on this board (that I’ve seen anyway) disputes that Trogo is properly translated to eat (moreover all protestant versions of scripture use the term eat).

Let me try and convey this in a way even the simplest mind can understand. Jesus tells His disciples (most of whom He knew would leave Him) that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they will perish. The reaction was what we might expect if anyone said to us you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. So the disciples responded this is hard teaching master, who do you think will possibly listen to such a bizarre statement? Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing.

Get it???

 

[orange_man]

Hi, Orange_man,

What a delightful post.

Now, let’s see. We are going to use physical means to investigate a spiritual reality. I am sure the authors you quote would be quite impressed with your understanding - and, technology - to use an MRI no less! Amazing!

Actually, I do not know what the “RCC” would say, but I do know what the Catholic Chruch (“Rome” is not part of the name… but, you knew that, right?) would say. All of the accidents (and, that would be down to and past the molecular and sub-atomic and beyond levels) would be unchanged. It really is NOT a physical reality - BUT a Spiritual Reality and one that virtually all of the ‘Reformers’ got tripped up on along the way.

So, since we are in agreement that the Consecrated Bread and Wine are, (except for the accidents of bread and wine) the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, does that resolve the issue?

but that is what the reformers said … it is a spiritual reality (both Luther and Calvin would agree with this). You’re probably referring to Zwingli … but I’m Presbyterian (Calvinist).

 

[bobregan]

Bob:

No disrespect … but this is I think the second time you made an absurd statement regarding scriptural interpretation. That is NOT the context the phrase “the flesh is no avail” is written in. Jesus was responding to the charge by His disciples that His statements regarding flesh and blood were bizarre (or as they put it “hard teaching”). The context is obvious and cannot be reasonably disputed.

Just because you looked up the meaning of the Koine Greek Trogo doesn’t make you St. Augustine. If you notice no protestant on this board (that I’ve seen anyway) disputes that Trogo is properly translated to eat (moreover all protestant versions of scripture use the term eat).

Let me try and convey this in a way even the simplest mind can understand. Jesus tells His disciples (most of whom He knew would leave Him) that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they will perish. The reaction was what we might expect if anyone said to us you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. So the disciples responded this is hard teaching master, who do you think will possibly listen to such a bizarre statement? Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing.

Get it???

Orangeman,

This interpretation is not my own, personal interpretation. I didn’t read John 6 tonight and say “hey…this is what I think it is.” It is the interpretation of the Catholic Church. If you find this interpretation absurd, then you’re finding the interpretation here of the Catholic Church absurd. It’s your perogative to disagree with the Catholic Church, but that’s the Church’s interpretation. I can tell you (and we can argue) where the Catholic Church gets its authority to make this statement of interpretation that says their interpretation is correct. But where do you get your authority to say that your interpretation of this passage is the correct one, and the Catholic Church’s is “absurd?”

I beleive Edwin had responded to you before on this. If Christ is refering to His own flesh when He says repeatedly to “eat my flesh” and if you’re (it looks like) saying that the “flesh” in John 6:54 (eat MY flesh, or eat Christ’s flesh) is the same “flesh” that Christ is refering to in John 6: 63 (the flesh is of no avail), then aren’t you then saying that Christ’s own bodily flesh (which Christ is definitely refering to) is useless, or of “no avail?” Then the bodily flesh of Christ that suffered, was tortured, and was crucified on the cross is of “no avail?” If His flesh is of no avail, then His dieing for us and our sins was useless.

And think about John 6 leading up to “The flesh is of no avail” part. Jesus says multiple times to eat my flesh, drink my blood. So according to your logic, is Jesus saying “You must eat my flesh, drink my blood, My flesh is food indeed, He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me…but forget what I just said because it is of no avail and a big waste of time??”

 

[bobregan]

Bob:

No disrespect … but this is I think the second time you made an absurd statement regarding scriptural interpretation. That is NOT the context the phrase “the flesh is no avail” is written in. Jesus was responding to the charge by His disciples that His statements regarding flesh and blood were bizarre (or as they put it “hard teaching”). The context is obvious and cannot be reasonably disputed.

Just because you looked up the meaning of the Koine Greek Trogo doesn’t make you St. Augustine. If you notice no protestant on this board (that I’ve seen anyway) disputes that Trogo is properly translated to eat (moreover all protestant versions of scripture use the term eat).

Let me try and convey this in a way even the simplest mind can understand. Jesus tells His disciples (most of whom He knew would leave Him) that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they will perish. The reaction was what we might expect if anyone said to us you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. So the disciples responded this is hard teaching master, who do you think will possibly listen to such a bizarre statement? Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing.

Get it???

From the Catholic Answers web-site:

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

 

[bobregan]

Bob:

No disrespect … but this is I think the second time you made an absurd statement regarding scriptural interpretation. That is NOT the context the phrase “the flesh is no avail” is written in. Jesus was responding to the charge by His disciples that His statements regarding flesh and blood were bizarre (or as they put it “hard teaching”). The context is obvious and cannot be reasonably disputed.

Just because you looked up the meaning of the Koine Greek Trogo doesn’t make you St. Augustine. If you notice no protestant on this board (that I’ve seen anyway) disputes that Trogo is properly translated to eat (moreover all protestant versions of scripture use the term eat).

Let me try and convey this in a way even the simplest mind can understand. Jesus tells His disciples (most of whom He knew would leave Him) that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they will perish. The reaction was what we might expect if anyone said to us you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. So the disciples responded this is hard teaching master, who do you think will possibly listen to such a bizarre statement? Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing.

Get it???

Catholic Answers:

In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level.

 

[bobregan]

Orangeman,

I am Catholic. I am Catholic because I believe (amongst other things) the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. I have shown you the Catholic teaching (and mine) on parts of John 6. Here is an article from the Catholic Answers on transubstantiation. I believe that too. If you want to refute me, then basically, you’re refuting the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, you claim to have studied John Chrysostom. Then you know he was known as the “Doctor of the Eucharist.” His teachings and writings on the Eucharist are beautiful. If you had studied him, why were you so surprised when I was essentially putting his teaching in to my own words? Read this, and let me know what you think. If you disagree with it, tell me where you get your authority that the Catholic Church is wrong, and you are right:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp

Bob

 

[bobregan]

Bob,

I think the problem here is with our definition of “physical” vs. “spiritual.” I am not at all convinced that transubstantiation is not a “spiritual” interpretation. “Substance” without “accidents” doesn’t seem at all like what I mean by “physical.” In normal modern speech, “physical” means “perceptible by the senses when the senses are operating properly.” It seems to me that Protestants sometimes understand Catholics to believe (perhaps because many Catholics do believe) that the senses don’t perceive the Eucharist because the senses are somehow deluded. That is certainly not what Aquinas taught (in the Summa; the hymn “Adoro Te devote” can be read that way, which is one reason that many people think it isn’t by Aquinas, though it’s also possible that he was using somewhat imprecise devotional language and could have written the hymn without contradicting himself). So if the senses are functioning properly and discerning what they are supposed to discern, but the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood is just not the sort of thing that can be perceived by the senses, I think the resistance of [many] Catholics to speaking of a “spiritual presence” is misguided.

Your reliance on the literal sense of “trogo” is also mistaken, I think, because the orthodox Catholic view does not hold that the Body of Christ is broken by the teeth. (The retractation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century does say this, and ironically Luther agreed with the retractation, taking a more literal view of the Eucharist than the later medieval and modern Catholic Church.)

I think that I understand why you want to deny that the Real Presence is “spiritual,” and I think (though I could be wrong) that I also deny what you deny when you deny this!

My own decisive difference with the Calvinist position (and agreement with the Catholic position) pertains to Eucharistic adoration. While I share some of the Orthodox and Protestant (and post-Vatican-II Catholic?) concerns about a piety focused on extraliturgical adoration as opposed to liturgical celebration and sacramental communion, I emphatically do not believe that worshiping Christ in the Eucharist can be seen as idolatrous. I have no problem genuflecting before the Host as an act of latreia to Christ present sacramentally.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Interesting comments on Berengarius and Aquainas from a Catholic web-site:

In the eleventh century Berengarius fell into heresy by failing to realize this point. His motto was, “I wish to understand all things by reason.” The Eucharist is one of those things which cannot be understood by reason. Human arguments can never explain Christ’s Real Presence.

Centuries later Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the scholastic theologians, taught the same. He said that the existence in the Eucharist of Christ’s real body and blood “cannot be grasped by the experience of the senses, but only by the faith which has divine authority and its support.” He put it into his famous verse: “Sight, touch, and taste in thee are each deceived; the ear alone most safely is believed; I believe all the Son of God has spoken, than through his own word there is no truer token.”

 

[bobregan]

Bob,

I think the problem here is with our definition of “physical” vs. “spiritual.” I am not at all convinced that transubstantiation is not a “spiritual” interpretation. “Substance” without “accidents” doesn’t seem at all like what I mean by “physical.” In normal modern speech, “physical” means “perceptible by the senses when the senses are operating properly.” It seems to me that Protestants sometimes understand Catholics to believe (perhaps because many Catholics do believe) that the senses don’t perceive the Eucharist because the senses are somehow deluded. That is certainly not what Aquinas taught (in the Summa; the hymn “Adoro Te devote” can be read that way, which is one reason that many people think it isn’t by Aquinas, though it’s also possible that he was using somewhat imprecise devotional language and could have written the hymn without contradicting himself). So if the senses are functioning properly and discerning what they are supposed to discern, but the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood is just not the sort of thing that can be perceived by the senses, I think the resistance of [many] Catholics to speaking of a “spiritual presence” is misguided.

Your reliance on the literal sense of “trogo” is also mistaken, I think, because the orthodox Catholic view does not hold that the Body of Christ is broken by the teeth. (The retractation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century does say this, and ironically Luther agreed with the retractation, taking a more literal view of the Eucharist than the later medieval and modern Catholic Church.)

I think that I understand why you want to deny that the Real Presence is “spiritual,” and I think (though I could be wrong) that I also deny what you deny when you deny this!

My own decisive difference with the Calvinist position (and agreement with the Catholic position) pertains to Eucharistic adoration. While I share some of the Orthodox and Protestant (and post-Vatican-II Catholic?) concerns about a piety focused on extraliturgical adoration as opposed to liturgical celebration and sacramental communion, I emphatically do not believe that worshiping Christ in the Eucharist can be seen as idolatrous. I have no problem genuflecting before the Host as an act of latreia to Christ present sacramentally.

Edwin

Comments on your end, Edwin, on Berengarius’ protaganists Lanfranc and Guitmund??

 

[GKC]

Hi Edwin,

Interesting comments on Berengarius and Aquainas from a Catholic web-site:

In the eleventh century Berengarius fell into heresy by failing to realize this point. His motto was, “I wish to understand all things by reason.” The Eucharist is one of those things which cannot be understood by reason. Human arguments can never explain Christ’s Real Presence.

Centuries later Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the scholastic theologians, taught the same. He said that the existence in the Eucharist of Christ’s real body and blood “cannot be grasped by the experience of the senses, but only by the faith which has divine authority and its support.” He put it into his famous verse: “Sight, touch, and taste in thee are each deceived; the ear alone most safely is believed; I believe all the Son of God has spoken, than through his own word there is no truer token.”

That the Real Presence is beyond human understanding is the basic reason why Anglicans who accept it, even to Canon 1 of Session XIII of Trent, may also treatment the concept of Transubstantiation as a pious opinion, as noble an attempt to reduce the mystery to our human level of comprehension as is possible, but not the sort of thing one can make de fide. Though it could very well be how the wheels go around. Anglicans tend to feel, as Lewis put into the mouth of one of his characters, that with respect to the Eucharist, we should remember that the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”. Which is fortunate for us.

That being said, the words attibuted to Aquinas in Adore Te Devote are certainly beautiful, and I’ve used them in discussing the Real Presence myself. Love the hymn.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pastor Gary,

Thank you for your response.

Hi, Tom

I would say that the action to maintain apostolic succession in Sweden came out of the primary purpose of the Reformation – to reform, not to leave the Catholic Church. There was no intention to discard anything of the historic church that was good and the belief in the maintenance of apostolic succession was seen as a good, a connection to the apostles and all who followed them, a positive connection to the church catholic. There was no reason to give that up. The actions of the bishops in Sweden took away the issue of validity of orders for those whom they ordained and those who followed.

Later developments would lead some Lutherans – and many Protestants – to reject the idea of apostolic succession as being passed on by a literal “laying on of hands.” For some, it became a matter of excising Catholicism from their ecclesiology; for some it was the development of the concept of apostolic succession solely as the passing on of the teaching of the Apostles; for those who developed a congregational ecclesiology it was the rejection of any authority other than scripture and the local congregation. And, of course, there are variations on those themes.

God bless,

 

[bobregan]

Bob,

I think the problem here is with our definition of “physical” vs. “spiritual.” I am not at all convinced that transubstantiation is not a “spiritual” interpretation. “Substance” without “accidents” doesn’t seem at all like what I mean by “physical.” In normal modern speech, “physical” means “perceptible by the senses when the senses are operating properly.” It seems to me that Protestants sometimes understand Catholics to believe (perhaps because many Catholics do believe) that the senses don’t perceive the Eucharist because the senses are somehow deluded. That is certainly not what Aquinas taught (in the Summa; the hymn “Adoro Te devote” can be read that way, which is one reason that many people think it isn’t by Aquinas, though it’s also possible that he was using somewhat imprecise devotional language and could have written the hymn without contradicting himself). So if the senses are functioning properly and discerning what they are supposed to discern, but the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood is just not the sort of thing that can be perceived by the senses, I think the resistance of [many] Catholics to speaking of a “spiritual presence” is misguided.

Your reliance on the literal sense of “trogo” is also mistaken, I think, because the orthodox Catholic view does not hold that the Body of Christ is broken by the teeth. (The retractation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century does say this, and ironically Luther agreed with the retractation, taking a more literal view of the Eucharist than the later medieval and modern Catholic Church.)

I think that I understand why you want to deny that the Real Presence is “spiritual,” and I think (though I could be wrong) that I also deny what you deny when you deny this!

My own decisive difference with the Calvinist position (and agreement with the Catholic position) pertains to Eucharistic adoration. While I share some of the Orthodox and Protestant (and post-Vatican-II Catholic?) concerns about a piety focused on extraliturgical adoration as opposed to liturgical celebration and sacramental communion, I emphatically do not believe that worshiping Christ in the Eucharist can be seen as idolatrous. I have no problem genuflecting before the Host as an act of latreia to Christ present sacramentally.

Edwin

Also, your comment that “the retraction tha Berengarius was forced to sign” on his profession of faith, is a little on the extreme side. I’m reading a book called "Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist" that discusses Berengarius fairly extensively. I know that some of the Protestant Reformers saw him as a hero, but Luther though had harsh words of him and was a notable exception. Regardless, Berengarius was a complex issue. Jean de Montclos does a fairly modern and thorough investigation on him. Montclos concludes that Berengarius was a man of intellectual pride, with a myopic view of the Church’s articles of faith. A man whose mental state was paranoid, but whose thought was explainable due to “the grave insufficencies of the Eucharistic theology of the time.” The book posits though that the “insufficencies” were not reallythat “grave”, but if it wasn’t for this scandal we would not have the great Eucharistic insights of Guitmund.

In your opinion, can it be argued that the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist was always there, but until the teaching is challenged, then do we then have greater scholarship and teaching clarity on the subject?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man

No disrepects, but I think the absurd statement lies with the way you have mis-constructed Christ’s own Words in John 6…

Bob:

No disrespect … but this is I think the second time you made an absurd statement regarding scriptural interpretation. That is NOT the context the phrase “the flesh is no avail” is written in. Jesus was responding to the charge by His disciples that His statements regarding flesh and blood were bizarre (or as they put it “hard teaching”). The context is obvious and cannot be reasonably disputed.

Just because you looked up the meaning of the Koine Greek Trogo doesn’t make you St. Augustine. If you notice no protestant on this board (that I’ve seen anyway) disputes that Trogo is properly translated to eat (moreover all protestant versions of scripture use the term eat).

Let me try and convey this in a way even the simplest mind can understand. Jesus tells His disciples (most of whom He knew would leave Him) that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they will perish. The reaction was what we might expect if anyone said to us you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. So the disciples responded this is hard teaching master, who do you think will possibly listen to such a bizarre statement? Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing.

"…Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing."

This is truly NOT what Christ said. He instructes all who are listening that He is: “The Bread of Life” that we are to “Eat this Bread”, that His Flesh is “Real Food” and His Blood is “Real Drink” and unless this is done - they have no life. Your interpretation totally voids out Christ’s statements - and - ignores the words Christ spoke at the Last Supper.

The Synoptics are really quite clear about the words of Consecration spoken by Christ concerning the Bread and Wine that He gave to His Apostles. I just can not even imagine Christ saying, on the night on which His Passion would begin - on His last night with His Apostles, “Here is another silly statement where I tell you this is My Body, but it is just another mind game for you to guess the meaning.” Just like you asked about our repulsion is someone told us to eat their flesh - don’t you think Christ would want to be crystal clear with the Apostles before He died? Christ was True Man - and He knew He would be dead in less then 24 hours. Whatever He was going to do (pre-Resurrection) would have to be done on That Night.

In my study of Scripture, one of biggest lessons I learned was that the people described in the Bible are real. They are human beings with real faults and real virtures. Some have real character - most, are “real characters”! But, they act in a believable manner - in a manner that we can relate to today. John 6 shows two major groups of people responding to Christ’s statements about actually being required to eat His Flesh if they are to live: those who walked and those who stayed. Those who walked could not leave their ‘fleshy’ ideas behind and chose to leave the Author of Life. Those who stayed did so by an act of Faith. Peter was inspired with his question about where would they go, since Christ had the words of eternal life. Maybe others were inspired, too. But, the issue is that John 6 represents a real crisis or watershet event - you either put your Faith in Christ’s words or you don’t. There is no midddle ground or area for compromise or diplomatic ambiguity.

Now, my question to you is a simple one: do you doubt that Christ can do what He is quoted as LITERALLY saying He would do? If, “yes” - then what is the basis for this? If, “no” why continue to dispute His words?

And, as a follow-up question: Protestants tend to pride themselves on the LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, yet, somehow manage to avoid John 6 in its LITERAL meaning. Why is that?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

but that is what the reformers said … it is a spiritual reality (both Luther and Calvin would agree with this).

I think Luther would be even less likely to call the Eucharistic presence “spiritual” than Catholics would. In some ways Aquinas is closer to Calvin than to Luther.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Thank you for the reminder on he Adoe Te Devote.

That being said, the words attibuted to Aquinas in Adore Te Devote are certainly beautiful, and I’ve used them in discussing the Real Presence myself. Love the hymn. GKC

I had really forgotten about this hymn … then I could not recall the words… I think I carry my driver’s license primarily as a reality check… Anyway… just in case some on the list are a bit on the forgetful side, too, here is an English translation of this lovely prayer.

God Bless

I devoutly adore you, O hidden God,
Truly hidden beneath these appearances.
My whole heart submits to you,
And in contemplating you,
It surrenders itself completely.

Sight, touch, taste are all deceived
In their judgment of you,
But hearing suffices firmly to believe.
I believe all that the Son of God has spoken;
There is nothing truer than this word of truth.

On the cross only the divinity was hidden,
But here the humanity is also hidden.
I believe and confess both,
And ask for what the repentant thief asked.

I do not see the wounds as Thomas did,
But I confess that you are my God.
Make me believe more and more in you,
Hope in you, and love you.
O memorial of our Lord’s death!

Living bread that gives life to man,
Grant my soul to live on you,
And always to savor your sweetness.

Lord Jesus, Good Pelican,
wash me clean with your blood,
One drop of which can free
the entire world of all its sins.

Jesus, whom now I see hidden,
I ask you to fulfill what I so desire:
That on seeing you face to face,
I may be happy in seeing your glory. Amen

 

[Contarini]

And you being a theologian by trade, Edwin,

I’m a church historian by training. Currently forced to teach systematic theology (though we will have a real systematic theologian next year), and definitely a historian of theology and deeply interested in it.

The Catholic belief (and of course, i’ll have to research it myself a little further) that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, **Soul, Divinity **of Christ…wouldn’t (and I could be wrong) that the “Soul and Divinity” part represents a spiritual aspect of Christ in the Eucharist?

Well yes, but the point I’m making is that if the dimensions and accidents of the Body and Blood are not present, then one could argue that the Body and Blood are present in a “heavenly and spiritual manner,” to quote our Anglican 39 Articles. The question, again, is what we mean by “substance.” Since we don’t normally think in terms of a substance/accidents ontology, applying the substance/accidents distinction to the Eucharist is going to result in a certain disconnect between how we think about the Eucharist and how we normally think about reality. I’m not sure that’s an entirely bad thing, because I think that the Eucharist is all about the transformation of reality–a foreshadowing of the Kingdom of God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But, the issue is that John 6 represents a real crisis or watershet event - you either put your Faith in Christ’s words or you don’t. There is no midddle ground or area for compromise or diplomatic ambiguity.

I think that applying John 6 so directly to the Eucharistic controversy is a serious mistake, whether it’s engaged in by Catholics or by Zwinglians.

There is no middle ground on whether we believe in Jesus or not. But there is plenty of middle ground on what we think Jesus meant by the clearly paradoxical and poetic language He used in John 6 and in the Words of Institution. Fundamentalists like to play this game of insisting that either we take the Bible absolutely literally or we don’t believe it. I reject that approach categorically, no matter who is so deluded as to use it.

Catholic apologists are of course right in pointing out that fundamentalists are inconsistently literal. But then everyone is. That’s a reason to abandon literalism on principle, not to employ it, however tempting it might be to do so as a rhetorical argument against fundamentalists.

Edwin