Trogos to a Protestant

[PRmerger]

yep…that is exactly my point…the thing being chewed is pita-like bread and what isn’t being chewed is Jesus’s flesh.

Absolutely incorrect. It is no longer bread, Radical. It is indeed Jesus’ Body. It is his soul and divinity.

As I stated above, if Christ’s flesh underwent a chewing process, then Christ’s flesh would be broken into ever smaller bits.

Yes, and what’s wrong with that? He is present even in the smallest crumb, at least until we can discern that it appears to be a crumb.

So although Christ commanded that we chew his flesh and although you might like to claim that you chew his flesh, it is an obvious fact that you don’t actually chew flesh…you chew bread. BTW, Protestants also chew bread at a Lord’s Supper…chewing bread isn’t chewing flesh.

Yes, we actually chew his flesh. We trogos it.

As we were commanded.

Not sure what your point is. Is it that it’s unpalatable? That it’s a hard saying, who could accept it?

Does it seem more reasonable to assume, that since it sounds a bit hard to accept, that we can just dismiss that which God has very clearly commanded?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and this is a keen and apposite point.

The pagans attempted to traduce the early Christians by calling them cannibals.

Seems to me that it was clear that these early Christians were not simply proclaiming a “symbolic” Eucharist, eh? If the pagans thought that they were cannibals, then it must have been that the Christians were proclaiming that they ate the flesh of their Messiah, yes?

 

[Radical]

not sure what you meant by “articially”, but I can agree that it is bizarre to think that flesh chewing is in any way involved.

In presenting that view you are actually resurrecting one of the chief slurs thrown at early Christians, namely the view that they were cannibalistic.

you have got it exactly backwards…I am the one saying that absolutely no flesh chewing is involved…that is also a way of saying that no cannibalism is involved…the ancient pagan accused ancient Christians of cannibalism. I most certainly don’t accuse Catholics of cannibalism.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
If it is not a problem, then why do the majority of deny the ancient and historical belief the early Christians taught it was truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus?

well that is exactly it…if it was a problem and required an interpretation supportive of a real bodily presence(RBP), then we wouldn’t deny the existence of a RBP. I don’t deny that some ECFs taught a RBP (the 4th century Antiochan school seems to be the source of the belief in a real somatic presence as opposed to a real presence).

Oh I see,so early Church writings and testimonies is still lacking for evidence? No my friend, it is called human spiritual pride. Yep! We humans know more than God and what he is capable of doing and not doing-right?

Quote:
As I once stated, if the Eucharist was never taught or believed as the RP, why is it not taught from the get-go as being false or a ursupation of Christ teaching?

first, you should distinguish between a real presence that is little more than Christ’s presence (as per his promise of, “where two or three are gathered”) and a RBP which took some time to develop and which was able to grow on the ground fertilized by Greek philosophical ideas regarding manner of existence.

Augustine, is an example of a ECF that did not believe in a RBP…I expect that you and/or others will protest against that claim, but recent scholarship nicely supports (and makes) that claim.

WRONG! I do not think so and I do not care what you post because you are WRONG and will always be in the wrong-period! It is you alone who wants St.Augustine to be like you-a non-believer of the RBP. U-huh…recent scholarship-eh? Key words: Recent scholarship And recent scholarship also claims Jesus was not God and had a wife and children. Do you support recent scholarship those nice claims too? I support and lean towards ANCIENT scholarship.

(

See Wills, Van der Meer and Kilmartin). It would seem to me that the early Church loved to ruminate on scripture/the gospels and “find” ever more profound meaning within the words…the ideas of earlier fathers were built upon by later fathers and gradually one sees the various views regarding Christ’s presence that existed in the early centuries become ever more grand and coalesce into a RBP. Once that happened and once the Church’s hierarchy had achieved the necessary power, any further dissent was eliminated by intimidation and/or violence. This “development” took time and had not been entirely achieved by Augustine’s day.

How lovely,but it is apparent as MOST Protestants who have no clue about doctrinal development. Why would you? Most Protestants I know don’t and believe God gave us everything instantly and should be clear spelled out in order to believe it.

The existence of a wide range of views in the first centuries speaks (IMHO) to the fact that the RBP is not a thing that originated with Christ or the Apostles, but rather, is a thing that we should attribute to pious imagination.

Ummmmm…so under your terms and understandings the doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation, and Canon of Scripture are things attributed to pious imaginations? Please provide the names of these pious imaginations-okay? Show where me were Jesus once mentions a canon of scripture?

 

[josephback]

They would say John 6 isn’t about the eucharist.

Then what is it about? On what authority do you stake your interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

.the ancient pagan accused ancient Christians of cannibalism.

This is quite trenchant, Radical. I don’t think you even realize its import.

So you propose that “the ancient pagans accused ancient Christians of cannibalism”, yes?

Why do you think they made this accusation, if it weren’t for the fact that the early Christians were professing a literal interpretation of John 6.

If it was symbolic, as per the innovation of the 16th century, then what would prompt the pagans to make this accusation? :coffeeread:

 

[josephback]

This is quite trenchant, Radical. I don’t think you even realize its import.

So you propose that “the ancient pagans accused ancient Christians of cannibalism”, yes?

Why do you think they made this accusation, if it weren’t for the fact that the early Christians were professing a literal interpretation of John 6.

If it was symbolic, as per the innovation of the 16th century, then what would prompt the pagans to make this accusation? :coffeeread:

Provocative

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Clearly it was all just a misunderstanding, and the pagans misunderstood the belief that the early Christians had. … not.

The early Christians professed that they were eating Christ’s Body and Blood, and that is why the pagans accused them of cannibalism.

 

[PRmerger]

The early Christians professed that they were eating Christ’s Body and Blood, and that is why the pagans accused them of cannibalism.

'zactly.

No pagan ever accused the Christians of “symbolic” cannibalism, eh?

This accusation is proof extraordinaire that the early Christians believe what the current day Christians (read: Catholics) believe. One and the same. First century belief. 21st century belief. No innovations here.

 

[WCH]

Then what is it about?

Different things. Feeding the 5,000, walking on water, bread of life discourse.

On what authority do you stake your interpretation?

The authority of the Scripture.

 

[WCH]

I disagree, but nevertheless, Protestantism has a heritage in the RCC, which gives no grace concerning the Scripture, but the grace is from God, and the word is also God’s (Is 40:8).

 

[Radical]

This is quite trenchant, Radical. I don’t think you even realize its import.

So you propose that “the ancient pagans accused ancient Christians of cannibalism”, yes?

Why do you think they made this accusation, if it weren’t for the fact that the early Christians were professing a literal interpretation of John 6.

here you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion

Here is a quote from Tertullian that describes the pagan criticism of Christian worship:

Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious lusts. Apology 7.1

Please note that the Christians are accused of more than just cannibalism. Would you suggest that there must have been more to the love between a Christian brother and a Christian sister than mere spiritual love, otherwise the pagans wouldn’t have accused the Christians of incest?

If it was symbolic, as per the innovation of the 16th century, then what would prompt the pagans to make this accusation?

hatred and perhaps a genuine misunderstanding of what was claimed…same prompting as with the accusations of incest and infanticide

 

[Radical]

Clearly it was all just a misunderstanding, and the pagans misunderstood the belief that the early Christians had. … not.

The early Christians professed that they were eating Christ’s Body and Blood, and that is why the pagans accused them of cannibalism.

following this logic the early Christians must have professed that a Christian brother had sex with his Christian sister, and that is why the pagans accused them of incest…what do you think that the early Christians claimed so that they were accused of infanticide and canine pimps?

 

[Radical]

Absolutely incorrect. It is no longer bread, Radical. It is indeed Jesus’ Body. It is his soul and divinity.

that is what you claim, but since I don’t hold to a greek philosophic understanding of existence, I don’t think that flesh can be chewed w/o teeth actually touching something made of protein molecules. It is not that God doesn’t have the power to do the thing that you claim. It is that, unless one holds to a certain philosophy (one that allows for the “substance” of a thing to be present even though no “accidents” are), your claim makes about as much sense as claiming that God has produced a round square

Yes, and what’s wrong with that? He is present even in the smallest crumb, at least until we can discern that it appears to be a crumb.

do you believe that he is also present in the single molecule that would (unavoidably) separate from the bread/wafer by its mere handling?..just curious

Yes, we actually chew his flesh. We trogos it.

not by any normal understanding of “chewing”…if words must be separated from their normal meanings to enable a claim, it is a very good indication that the claim is just bad

Not sure what your point is. Is it that it’s unpalatable?

no, its figurative

That it’s a hard saying, who could accept it?

those enabled by the Father is Christ’s explanation…he didn’t explain that you would neeed greek philosophy to accept that hard saying

Does it seem more reasonable to assume, that since it sounds a bit hard to accept, that we can just dismiss that which God has very clearly commanded?

I would suggest that we understand the command similarly to how Augustine understood it:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or
vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not
figurative. 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, ye
have no life in you.” **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. **

 

[PRmerger]

here you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion

Here is a quote from Tertullian that describes the pagan criticism of Christian worship:

Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious lusts. Apology 7.1

Please note that the Christians are accused of more than just cannibalism. Would you suggest that there must have been more to the love between a Christian brother and a Christian sister than mere spiritual love, otherwise the pagans wouldn’t have accused the Christians of incest?

This is a fair point. I don’t know why the pagans may have thought Christians were committing incest. I surmise that it was the Catholic profession of agape that was misinterpreted.

But the question still stands: what prompted them to accuse the early Christians of being cannibals? That seems to be an “out there” accusation. Was there something that they observed that provided the catalyst for this accusation? Reason seems to point to the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

that is what you claim, but since I don’t hold to a greek philosophic understanding of existence,

A Greek philosophic understanding of existence? Huh?

I don’t think that flesh can be chewed w/o teeth actually touching something made of protein molecules.

Well, it’s not protein molecules. It’s the substance of bread, which is carbohydrate molecules. But during transubstantiation the bread actually becomes the Body (flesh) of Jesus.

But chewing I most certainly do! Just like I was commanded to do.

It is not that God doesn’t have the power to do the thing that you claim.

'zactly.

And it’s not like there’s nothing written about it in His Holy Writ.

It is that, unless one holds to a certain philosophy (one that allows for the “substance” of a thing to be present even though no “accidents” are), your claim makes about as much sense as claiming that God has produced a round square

One need not hold to any certain philosophy (Greek or otherwise, except. of course, to Apostolic philosophy) to understand that the Eucharist is the RP of Christ.

In fact, there is a 20-something man with Down syndrome in my parish who receives the Eucharist with such reverence and theological wisdom that it chokes me up each and every time he goes up to receive Him. Clearly, he gets it. Philosophical degree in Greek Existentialism notwithstanding.

 

[PRmerger]

do you believe that he is also present in the single molecule that would (unavoidably) separate from the bread/wafer by its mere handling?..just curious

No. He is only present when one can discern that it is bread. Crumb? Yes. Single molecule? No.

not by any normal understanding of “chewing”…if words must be separated from their normal meanings to enable a claim, it is a very good indication that the claim is just bad

Well, if you must change the definition of “chewing” to be “that which only grinds protein molecules”, then we’re going to have to change the packaging on “chewing” gum, yes?

no, its figurative

What verse in Scripture says this? Chapter and verse, please. “Figurative” would be nice if it was in the verse, too.

those enabled by the Father is Christ’s explanation…he didn’t explain that you would neeed greek philosophy to accept that hard saying

Did you know that the CC allows 7 year olds to receive the Eucharist, Radical? No priest has *ever *(I am willing to bet my CAF membership on this!) withheld the Eucharist from anyone who didn’t express an understanding of Greek philosophy.

 

[Radical]

No. He is only present when one can discern that it is bread. Crumb? Yes. Single molecule? No.

interesting distinction

Well, if you must change the definition of “chewing” to be “that which only grinds protein molecules”, then we’re going to have to change the packaging on “chewing” gum, yes?

no, the “trogos” has to do with flesh…we all know what chewing is and we all know what flesh is…Catholics and Protestants both chew at the Lord’s Supper (if there is any doubt, let’s appeal to the 7 year old that you mentioned, he’ll be easily able to point out some fellow chewing at either celebration). Now, take that same 7 year old and have him find some actual flesh that is eaten at either celebration…don’t indoctrinate him with your view so that he’ll repeat what you want (whether it makes any sense or not). Pick one off the street, bring him in and ask him, “What are the people chewing?” …that 7 year old will also be able to help you figure out if the chewing gum is labelled correctly, or not.

What verse in Scripture says this? Chapter and verse, please. “Figurative” would be nice if it was in the verse, too.

it is a continuation of what Christ said at 4: 34 (His food is to do the will of the Father)…it would be nice if “transubstantiated bread” was in the verse too.

 

[PRmerger]

I would suggest that we understand the command similarly to how Augustine understood it:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or
vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not
figurative. 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, ye
have no life in you.” **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. **

Radical, were you aware the Augustine’s view on the Eucharist is that which the Catholic Church holds? We *do *hold to a spiritual and figurative understanding of it. Just not to an “only” figurative understanding.

Why, even Protestant theologian JND Kelly writes: "There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s table’ to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227], “'That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.” (Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, pp 446-447)

 

[PRmerger]

Now, take that same 7 year old and have him find some actual flesh that is eaten at either celebration…don’t indoctrinate him with your view so that he’ll repeat what you want (whether it makes any sense or not). Pick one off the street, bring him in and ask him, “What are the people chewing?” …that 7 year old will also be able to help you figure out if the chewing gum is labelled correctly, or not.

And I will ask you to take a 7 year old Nazorean child–don’t indoctrinate him with your view–and ask him, pointing out Jesus, “Can a man be God?” and see what he’ll tell you.

it is a continuation of what Christ said at 4: 34 (His food is to do the will of the Father)…it would be nice if “transubstantiated bread” was in the verse too.

Now, Radical, I think you know that Catholics don’t hold to SS. It’s *your *tradition, not ours. Thus, why would “transubstantiated bread” be required to be in the Scriptures?

If you hold to SS, then you ought to be able to show everything you profess in the Scriptures, and “figurative” is not found in reference to the Lord’s Supper. Not once.