http://www.cukierski.net/three-days-darkness-package-p-126.html
"A Miracle similar to that at Fatima, a great wonder to convince many, predicted to take place on the Feast Day of a "young martyr" of the "Eucharist" but NOT on a holy day of Our Lady. The miracle will last for about a quarter of an hour and will be visible from Garabandal, Spain, and the surrounding mountains. Our Holy Father will see it no matter where he is at the time. This miracle will take place on a date which will be "announced" eight days BEFORE. Afterwards, God will leave a sign in memory of it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
122 comments:
Another stuff that you don't see in CTC or Catholic Answers is the decrease of catholics here in Brazil...
http://estadaodados.com/html/religiao/
Another stuff that you don't see in CTC or Catholic Answers is the decrease of catholics here in Brazil...
http://estadaodados.com/html/religiao
Weird stuff like that doesn't sell well to Evangelical and Reformed religious consumers. The market determines the rhetoric.
The issue of relics in Catholic spirituality and devotion was addressed at CTC in April of 2010. See the article by Matt Yonke here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/relics/
Christopher Lake said...
The issue of relics in Catholic spirituality and devotion was addressed at CTC in April of 2010. See the article by Matt Yonke here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/relics/
Christopher,
I was actually more interested in the end-times stuff in the link I posted. Do the ex-Reformed CTC folks get into following Mary sightings and end times prophecy?
Also, Mary's place in Catholic spirituality and devotion has been the subject of numerous CTC articles. As for Marian apparitions, this piece deals with Our Lady of Guadelupe, containing a link to a lecture on the subject by Dr. Lawrence Feingold: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/our-lady-of-guadalupe/
CTC exists, in part, to explain the Catholic faith, not to be ashamed of any part of it. The same is true for Catholic Answers.
Sorry, James-- I just saw your reply to my first comment after posting the second one (which should be helpful for you hopefully).
CTC exists, in part, to explain the Catholic faith, not to be ashamed of any part of it.
Yes, we here on our side of the Tiber realize that the infallible interpreter needs to be fallibly interpreted by CTC and Catholic Answers.
James, the fact of the existence of the teaching authority of the Magisterium does not mean that there is no need for lay Catholic apologetics and/or for ecumenical dialogue a la CTC.
Catholics (and non-Catholics) obviously have to engage their own reasoning and interpretive abilities to read and understand Church teaching. No one would say otherwise. Those interpretive abilities are fallible. However, the Church's teaching authority is that of a living, speaking voice which can clarify and correct errant interpretations as needed.
As a former Calvinist Protestant, I am well aware of the Protestant claims of the perspicuity of Scripture for the Spirit-indwelt believer, and that the Holy Spirit supposedly does away with the need for a Magisterium to authoritatively interpret Scripture. That being the case, I must ask, when are all Protestants going to finally reach interpretive agreement, via the indwelling Holy Spirit, on whether they can lose their salvation or not and whether they should have their infants baptized or not (and on many other important issues about which Protestants disagree among themselves)?
IOW Christopher, that old bugaboo private interpretation raises its ugly little head.
Thanks for admitting it, though. If only the rest of the CtC gang would admit it and work out the implications, instead of hypocritically trying to trump protestantism with it.
Neither does the Holy Spirit do away with a subordinate authority to interpret scripture, the difference being protestantism does not see that teaching authority to be infallible, while its essence is ministerial, not magisterial. If you didn't know that as a former Calvinist Prot. better late than never, you know it now.
Likewise when are all New Roman Catholics going to get together with all the Old Roman Catholics and sing kumbaya forever?
But heresies, come that those who are approved might be made manifest 1 Cor. 11:19.
IOW it serves the purpose of God to try and purify his church.
cheers
RPW, the "CTC gang" (in your words) has already answered the Protestant contention that the interpretation needed to become Catholic is no different from the private interpretation involved in Sola (and, more obviously, in Solo) Scriptura. Two articles addressing the subject can be found at the site:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/son-of-a-tu-quoque/
It has been 500 years since the Reformation. If Sola Scriptura were really the God-intended model for how believers should engage Scripture, one would think that by this point, at the very least, Protestants would have been able to issue one basic Protestant catechism for *all* Protestants, detailing what the Bible teaches on salvation (can a believer lose it or not?), baptism (infants or believers only?), and other important Scriptural matters.
The simple fact that after 500 years, Protestants still do not even have one basic catechism, on which all Protestant denominations can agree, speaks volumes about the insufficiency of Protestantism itself to offer a way for believers to agree *about* Scripture, while working *from* Scripture (whether the model is "Sola" or "Solo" Scriptura).
Sorry- I meant to type RPV there.
It is remarkable to me that sincere, well-intentioned people don't see through the nonsense at the CTC site.
Take the Tu Quoque posts, for example. Do they actually provide a meaningful answer to the objection? No.
That's why fans of the CTC materials can read their articles a number of times (I won't say 10, because brevity is not their strength) and still not be able to identify the actual argument in such a way as to be able to present it back.
The Tu Quoque article is just an exercise in sophistry. It doesn't address the fundamental problem that if private judgement is bad for the goose, it's bad for the gander. And the son of the first article is as bad as its father.
Notwithstanding many words, the fundamental problem is easily identified: if private judgment is so unreliable that we cannot trust it to tell us what the Scripture says, there is no reason to think it is reliable enough to to tell us what "the Church" says.
You can't simply insist on applying post-modern skepticism when it comes to the Bible but then turn around and refuse to apply post-modern skepticism when it comes to magisterial writings. That's just fundamental inconsistency.
Feel free, though, to go and re-read for the 11th time those posts and figure out what actual answer they have to this problem.
If you find an actual answer, feel free (as far as I am concerned) to share it.
-TurretinFan
Christopher
True protestants do have one short and brief catechism. Justification is by faith alone and the pope is antichrist because he claims to be the vicar of Christ and denies JBFA.
OK, a lot of protestants don't believe it. But at the Reformation they did, much more they denied that Scripture promised that the visible church would never err.
Rome of course, believes the last and touts her unchanging inerrancy/infalliblity as a mark that she is the true church.
Yet Rome asserts what it must prove and heresies are come to see who walks by sight of the visible church and who walks by faith - but without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11:6.
Need I point out that romanists such as yourself are in the first category?
Thank you.
TurretinFan,
I take you at your word that you've read the CTC articles on the "Tu Quoque"-- but I have to say, respectfully and regretfully, given your brief, dismissive comments on those articles, it doesn't seem that you understood their arguments very well.
The articles (linked to in my above comment) *directly confront and refute* the objection that the Catholic finally is subject to the same "private interpretation" of Scripture, tradition, and history, as is the Protestant, via his/her practice of Sola Scriptura, with the primacy of his/her individual conscience being the final deciding factor in the interpretive process.
Specifically, your concerns about private interpretation and "postmodern skepticism" are addressed in the "Follow-up Questions and Answers" section of the first "Tu Quoque" article. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
(continued below)
Apostolic succession is an historical fact which can be discovered through historical research. The lines of bishops can be found and traced, from Peter and the first apostles, to the present-day Bishops, including the Pope (Bishop of Rome). The Resurrection of Christ is also an historical fact which can be discovered through historical research (for those who are open to it and not predisposed against it).
Obviously, Catholics and Protestants agree on the Resurrection. However, they do not agree on justification by faith alone, which is *not* an historical fact which can be discovered through historical research, but rather, is a particular *interpretation* of what Scripture teaches.
(continued below)
Virtually no Protestant denomination would even claim to have apostolic succession, so for Protestants, it is largely a non-issue. The question then becomes, whose interpretation (of justification) is correct? However, given the nature of Protestant theology and ecclesiology, there can never be a higher, more binding authority, in the interpretation of Scripture, than the primacy of one's own conscience (therefore, Luther's famous "Here I stand; I can do no other")-- which is why Protestants, among themselves, can no longer agree on the "correct, Scriptural" understanding of *even* justification by faith alone (witness the dismissal of Norman Shepherd at Westminster in the '80s, and the Federal Vision Controversy in the PCA today).
(continued...)
Without an ultimate, divinely authorized, and thus, authoritative, interpreter of Scripture, *outside of oneself*, there can be no final, higher authority, in the interpretation of Scripture, *than oneself*. Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit *is* their authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but they cannot seem to agree on what the Holy Spirit is revealing to them. Hence, the conflicting existence of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, "non-denominational" Protestants, and others, with their conflicting interpretations of Scripture-- even *with* the Holy Spirit as their (supposed) "authoritative interpreter of Scripture."
(continued...)
By contrast, the divine authorization of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as interpreter of Scripture, can be *historically discovered* through historically tracing the lines of apostolic succession, from the time of Christ and the apostles to the present-day Magisterium.
As a former Calvinist Protestant, I know that many Protestants deny (or minimize) the reality of apostolic succession in Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy)-- but the hard reality is that the thinking processes often *used* in that Protestant denial (or minimization of) apostolic succession, *if* employed consistently, *would* lead to a truly "postmodern skepticism" about many other, similarly historically attested facts. Thanks be to God, in this case, for inconsistency!
RPV,
Your implied assertion that "Romanists," such as myself, walk by sight, rather than faith, is ridiculous. Anyone who affirms all of the points of the Nicene Creed, in more than just the sense of "mental assent," obviously walks by faith in Christ alone. This includes Catholics. The Creed was codified at our Church Council in Nicea in the 4th century!
The Nicean Creed was codified in a genuine ecumenical Christian church council in 325 and the non ecumenical Council of Trent met in 1545 to 1563 resulting in the Roman church. They are not the same thing, but if you don't stop buying into the implicit faith and prattling the propaganda you have been fed you'll never figure it out, humanly speaking.
Likewise if you believe the visible church is infallible, you walk by sight.
But Elijah by faith accepted the Lord's rebuke in 1 K 19:18.
Rome has yet to come anywhere close.
Consequently she is not included in the seven thousand.
Matthew 23:13 is therefore her epitah:
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Thank you.
RPV,
The "Nicean" (sic) Creed was codified in 325 A.D. at a Council by bishops of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the original, historical, "genuine ecumenical Christian church." Catholics have been answering fallacious assertions to the contrary for centuries. I know that all too well, because as you are doing now, I used to make those sorts of fallacious assertions about the "genuine ecumenical Christian church-- and I was proven wrong.
The Catholic Church did not begin at Trent. She began when Christ established her with Peter and the first apostles, and Christ did not abandon her. The line of apostolic succession in the Church can be traced historically to the 1st century A.D., and it continues today in the Church with the present bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI.
From 189 A.D., long before the Council of Trent, St. Irenaeus wrote about how one could identify the apostolic Christian church and her teachings:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
(Source: http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/apostolic-succession/)
CL
Your response is nonsubstantive.
The Nicean council was a genuine ecumenical council.
Not so Trent.
End of story.
True, the catholic church did not begin at Trent, but the Roman Catholic church did. That's the problem. Where did the early church teach what Rome now teaches? IOW as Christ said, make a true judgement and not one based on appearances.
Will we have succession of persons or doctrine in that we know that the apostles didn't appeal per se to their own authority but the gospel which they preached and the word of God. Hence Gal. 1:8,9 and later Paul's rebuke of yes, Peter.
You assume what you need to prove, at the very least to protestants, and a persistent reiteration of the Roman position proves nothing - tho evidently it wore you down and you bought into it.
Hence the RC modus operandi we see here, over at CtC and elsewhere. Like water wearing away at a stone, the Romanist constantly asserts the party line. The appeal is to authority, authority and even more authority.
All who disbelieve are disobedient to history/tradition which trumps Scripture and reason.
Yet the cart is before the horse, even if those in the cart are seated backwards and think the horse in front of them.
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Is. 6:9,10
RPV,
You asked me, "Where did the early church teach what Rome now teaches? Well, I could go for a very long time on this matter; the only things impeding me are 1. My Cerebral Palsy, which makes it impossible to type quickly, and 2. The character limit in the comboxes here, and 3. Time (see no. 1)!
Having said the above, there is John 6, in which the Lord commands us to "gnaw" on his flesh, in the original Greek, which supports the Catholic view of the Eucharist much more than Calvin's or Zwingli's notions of the Eucharist.
Also, if you peruse the various subject categories at www.churchfathers.org, you will see that the early Church Fathers, from Irenaeus to Ignatius to Augustine (who provide documentation of the "early church" of the 1st-5th centuries) believed in apostolic succession, the Real Presence (i.e. not merely "spiritual" or "symbolic") of Christ in the Eucharist, and other things which "Rome" now teaches.
Here are just two examples:
Ignatius of Antioch
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
John Chrysostom
“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
Not very Calvinistic-sounding, is it?
CL,
For one, where did the early church teach the pope was the head of the church, never mind infallible?
We know Augustine didn't think Peter was the rock upon which the church was built, nor many other fathers for that matter.
IOW the early church fathers were a diverse bunch. Rome can only cherry pick and make her case by special pleading. There is no across the board consensus in the early church on the doctrines peculiar to Rome like she says there is.
Even more to the point, the real problem is not our medical condition, but our spiritual condition.
Just as the Jews couldn't get past literally eating and drinking the multiplied loaves and the manna from heaven that Moses gave Israel, Rome can't get past the bread and the wine the priest literally turns into the body of Christ.
Yet Christ, the real spiritual bread from heaven who brings spiritual life to the world is using eating and drinking metaphorically for believing. In Jn. 6: 35 Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
After all, if Christ compares coming to never hungering and believing to never thirsting, just how else is one to take all the talk about eating and drinking, in that Christ repeatedly mentions how important it is to believe in him? Which is exactly what the Jews would not do even though they literally saw him and literally ate the bread he multiplied.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
v. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
v.36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
v. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
v.47 . . . He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
But what does Augustine say in his classic On Christian Doctrine where he talks about how to interpret Scripture? For one, the clear explains the dark. IOW there are some things in John 6 taught more plainly than literally eating and drinking Christ, whatever the blind leading the blind might claim.
Yet Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Jn. 9:39-41
Thank you.
RPV,
Respectfully, I'm not sure how your comment that our real problem is spiritual, not medical, is "more to the point" (in your words) of our discussion at all. I have not ever disputed that question with you. The deepest, most urgent problem of all of humanity *is* spiritual. I agree with you there. Why, then, did you mention that as a seeming point of clarification here?
I notice that you did not attempt to address the quotes on the Eucharist which I provided for you from two early Church Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. John Chrysostom.
Both of these quotes actually *predate* the formal codifying of the New Testament into a definitive canon (which occurred at a Church Council in 397 A.D.) Read the quote from Chrysostom again. Does it sound anything like what you believe about the Eucharist?
If you don't accept what these men believed about the Eucharist, *before* they and others formally codified the NT canon, why do you trust their judgment regarding the canon?
You refer to St. Augustine to argue for the perspicuity of Scripture on matters which *you* deem to be essential. Are you aware that Augustine believed in Purgatory? I can provide evidence from his writings. He disagrees with you quite strongly on what exactly are the "essentials" of the Christian faith.
As for the early Church's belief in apostolic succession and the Papacy, I will provide two early passages (from 189 A.D.), by St. Irenaeus, on the subject in my next comment.
(continued below)
I quoted these passages in an earlier comment to you, but you seemed to have missed what they are saying about apostolic succession and the Bishop of Rome in the early Church. Note what St. Irenaeus appeals to here, in 189 A.D., in the early battles against heretics of his time. He does *not* appeal to anything resembling the "Sola Scriptura" of the Reformers:
Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
(Source: http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/apostolic-succession/)
CL
In that you appealed first to Jn 6 and gnawing on Christ, I responded. IMO you no liked that response (sic) because your argument got the worst of it. So you then reply by falling back on the secondary authority of various early church fathers.
But if you can't deal head on with the Scripture - which you after all brought up in the first place - then what's the point of the discussion, other than evading anything substantial?
As in Rome can't justify it's position from Scripture, never mind the Early Church Fathers.
Regarding the last, so what if Augustine believed in purgatory? He also denied Peter was the first pope? Which is more central to Romanism/Popery?
Much more where is the across the board consensus in the ECFs to support what Rome teaches? We can easily prove one of the great ECFs doesn't toe the popish party line - or fit the Roman "intellectual paradigm" to cop a term from another self appointed private popish internet interpreter over at CtC.
The last of which is the backdrop to your appeal to the ECFs like it or not. There has been a lot of water under the bridge historically, as well as recently on the internet on the issue.
That is while I am told authoritatively no less, by self appointed private interpreters of both the magisterium and tradition, that Rome denies the protestant Private Interpretation of Scripture, in order that these self appointed private interpreters may supplant my private protestant interpretation of Scripture and the ECFs with a PI more amenable to the Infallible Popish Interpretation of Rome. IOW lets appeal to PI in order to overthrow it. But two into three won't go evenly and let's call nonsense by its name and be done with it.
Does anybody else get how hopelessly confused and contradictory this appears to protestants?
IOW to again state the obvious, the ECF are not the final authority, helpful though they may be as to how we ought to understand Scripture.
But in that both protestants and papists appeal to Scripture, that is where, like it or not, the argument is won and lost and in that you demur to engage with the same, you decide your own fate.
Or if you will the verdict of Jn. 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Thank you.
RPV,
You did not actually make an *argument* that my understanding of the Eucharist from John 6 (which is the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist) is incorrect. You *asserted* that the Catholic understanding of John 6 is incorrect, but you did not make an *argument* to that effect. Given that assertions are not arguments, you did not even begin to disprove the Catholic understanding of John 6.
After Jesus makes His statement that His disciples must eat ("gnaw," in the Greek) His flesh and drink His blood, or they will have no life in them, many of His followers actually leave Him. Why do they leave, if He is speaking metaphorically? Why does He not run after them, clarifying that He *is* (supposedly) speaking metaphorically?
St. Augustine did not deny that Peter is the first Pope. If Augustine had done so, he would not be a canonized Saint in the Catholic Church! However, it is true that he is sometimes quoted out of context on this subject by anti-Catholic apologists. Here he is, in context, on Peter and the Papacy:
"Of this Church, Peter, the Apostle, on account of the Primacy of his Apostleship, bore a character which represented the whole Church. For as to what personally regards him, he was by nature but one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace, one, and that the First Apostle. But when there was said to him, ‘I will give unto him the keys,’ He signified the whole Church, which, in this world is, by divers trials, as it were, by rains, rivers, and tempests, agitated, but falls not, because it was built upon a Rock, whence Peter derived his name. For a rock is not derived from Peter, but Peter from a Rock, as Christ is not derived from Christian, but Christian from Christ. For therefore does the Lord say, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Upon this Rock, therefore, which thou has confessed, I will build my Church. For Christ was the Rock; upon which Foundation, even Peter himself was built. ‘For other foundation can no man lay but that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ The Church therefore which is founded on Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven from Him, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins." (T.iii.Tract.Cxxiv.in Joan.n, co.599)
Now, if St. Augustine had wanted to deny that Peter was the first Pope, would he (Augustine) have stated that Peter had both primacy of apostleship *and* the power to bind and loose sins, as mentioned in the above passage?
No, CL. I did not make an argument that the Roman understanding of John 6 was in error.
Christ himself makes the argument in Jn. 6:35. Again, it reads:
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Here in so many words, Christ connects believing in him with eating and drinking.
If you have a problem with that, how else do you explain it (other than the typical Roman tactic of accusing others of what you are actually guilty of - a non-argument)?
As for your question why Christ doesn’t pursue those who leave him on account of his hard saying, the answer is because they don’t believe and Christ not only knows that, he is not upset by it per se. As a matter of fact, he had explicitly told them as much in Jn. 6:37-40
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
But Rome also denies predestination and the preservation of the saints, as well as justification by faith alone (believing), so no surprise here.
Regarding Augustine, he in no way saw Peter as the rock upon which Christ’s church was founded in Matt.16:18, but rather that Christ was the foundation, as Peter confessed. As for primacy among the apostles and the power of the keys, so what? The latter was given to all the apostles later in Jn.20:23. In short, you assume what you need to prove and anachronistically read into the NT account what is not there to begin with.
RPV,
Believing, practicing Catholics agree with Christ's statements in John 6:35 (as He is Our Lord!). He is the bread of life. Those who come to Him shall never hunger, and those who believe on Him shall never thirst. To say that these verses disprove transubstantiation is, again, not an argument. It is an assertion.
Simply quoting a few verses of Scripture, and asserting that those verses, themselves, disprove Catholic exegesis of *other* verses in the *very same chapter*, is question-begging. It is assuming your particular Protestant framework to be true, rather than arguing for it. The Catholic Church teaches the truth of both John 6:35 and transubstantiation. There is no objective reason to assume that they are in conflict.
As for St. Augustine, it is interesting... you seem to be criticizing me for appealing to the Church Fathers (supposedly above Scripture, in your thinking), yet you are "appealing" to him too, in a sense, denying that he believed in the Papacy. In that light, I ask you to please carefully read the following passage from him. Note where he appeals to the "succession of bishops, from the very see of the apostle Peter... up to the present episcopate" in battling against heretics:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
So, from a third point of view: Christopher, can you show what in John 6 is supposed to convince us that when Jesus seems to be saying that his flesh is bread he really means that something that used to be substantially bread ceased to be substantially bread and became substantially Christ's flesh? (i.e. transubstantiation).
RPV: Can you show us what in John 6 is supposed to convince us that when Jesus said "whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" he was thereby signaling to his disciples that everything he seemed to be saying in the bread of life discourse was not to be taken to mean what it seemed to mean? You proposed that a metaphor was being constructed. What are the tenor and vehicle of the metaphor, or if you'd rather look at it another way, the target and the source, metaphrand and metaphier, or whatever? I've tried to come up with something and however I analyze it, the metaphor seems to fall apart in the dialogue as a whole.
What is the context of John 6?
Christ fed the multitude with the loaves and then left. They followed him. Upon finding him, he chides them for seeking after bread for their belly and exhorts them to seek heavenly meat.They ask what work they are to do. He says believe in him. They ask for a sign and reference the manna from heaven. Christ says he is the true bread, he who believes in him shall never thirst. The Jews demur and Christ repeats himself a few times as well as mentions the sovereignty of God in exactly who will believe in him.
In short, the Jews are obsessed with the physical bread, with actually eating and drinking. But Christ says he is the true bread and comes down from heaven' that one must eat and drink him, that one must believe in him.
Ditto Rome and its fascination with transubstantiation, which has nothing to do with the passage, if not that the Roman church out does the Jews in their fixation on first, the actual bread that Jesus fed the multitude with, then secondly, the manna, which was a type of the heavenly bread, but was again literally bread, all the while the Jews who had seen Christ and his miracles right before their very eyes, refused to confess that he was the Son of God, which in contrast Peter actually did, in the name of all the apostles Jn.6:69.
(Thanks for your question, steelikat. I was going to run through the context previously, but decided to go for brevity in that the obvious in Jn.6 is . . . maybe not so obvious.)
CL, again my point is that Augustine contradicts the Roman take on Matt. 16:18 and demonstrates that there was not the unanimous consensus with Rome that Rome claims among the early church fathers.
Protestants have no problem with the ECFs per se, only when they are seen as infallible or presenting a monolithic testimony to the way Rome says it was.
In short, distinguish, don't distort, the point. It's not inconsistent for sola scriptura protestants to mention an ECF with approval.
RPV:
"Protestants have no problem with the ECF's..."
Electrochemical fluorination?
You and Christopher Lake are missing an important point. It isn't that Jesus failed to "run after" or "pursue" those who left, it is rather than he confirmed what you say is a total error on their part:
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
"VERY TRULY I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you...my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink...whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in them...
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?"
There are many occasions where Christ spoke in an obscure fashion. There are many occasions when he said things that had double meanings (both true!). But is there anywhere else in the gospels where Jesus confirmed the truth of something not true, where he was deceitful, even to the Pharisees and to those who rejected Him? I think if your interpretation is right that would make this instance unique in his earthly ministry.
This is a passover discourse ("Passover was drawing near...") It looks like what you are doing is making Jesus apparently a equivocator rather than make the obvious connection. What did Jesus say on a different Passover? "This is my body...this is my blood." Doesn't the parallelism seem to jump out at you?
SK
It is not a passover discourse as was the Last Supper.
The Jews were intent on physical food, whether the loaves or manna, while Christ keeps telling them he is the real spiritual food.
Whoever comes to him/believes, will never hunger or thirst 6:35,
Further his words are spirit and life, the flesh profiteth nothing 6:63.
When, after preaching election, even some of his disciples walk no more with him 6:65,66 Peter confesses that Jesus has the the words of eternal life and that he is the Son of the living God 6:68,69.
Bingo. That's the point, not transubstantiation which gets read backward into the chapter.
But Rome believes none of Jn. 6, whether justification by faith alone/believing or predestination and election although she professes to honor Christ - even by a semi Aaronic priesthood, which can turn bread into God and re-sacrifice Christ in her mass.
Yet Scripture is not esoteric or gnostic, but must be spiritually understood and that is a gift from God and not something exercised due to man's free will. To that end how many times is someone told to go and preach with the end result being the hardening of their audience?
Or if you prefer, why is Is. 6:9,10 quoted 6 times in the NT; in each gospel, Acts and Romans?
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
God will be glorified in the salvation of sinners and Christ exalted in the preaching of his word, rather than being turned into a wafer to be idolized.
But if according to Ps. 135:18 they that make idols become like them . . . well, connect the dots. There's a difference between P&R theology and the Vatican version of the Pillsbury doughboy.
I'm sure I'm completely misunderstanding what you are trying to do here. You seem to be telling me that the point of the Bread of Life discourse is a sort of time-delayed anti-tridentine sermon that wouldn't be understood by anyone for a millenium and a half, but at the same time you say it isn't esoteric or gnostic. That can't be right; I'm sure you aren't contradicting yourself.
I think the problem is that I "butted in" to a dialog between you and Christopher Lake and you misunderstood what I was doing. You thougth I was joining him in trying to argue that the passage is teaching transubstantiation, that he and I were "tag-teaming" you, and you are still really just arguing with him in your comments addressed to me.
So if that's the case....Never mind. I apologize again for butting in.
Christopher Lake:
If you are still reading this, I still would like to see you have to say about my comment of July 10, 6:54 PM (the first paragraph, not the second). So that you don't misunderstand, let me assure you that I am not joining with RPV in a sort of a "tag team" against you. It just seems to me that you really haven't given us any supporting argumentation for your contention that Jesus is teaching transubstantiation in the Bread of Life discourse of John 6.
SK,
My memory says you are somewhat lutheran, but I could well be wrong.
No, I didn't necessarily think that you were were tagteaming up with Chris, but neither did I quite get what you were trying to say.
Be that as it may, I took the opportunity to again slam - yes, I am no fan of Rome and what it reads into the Scripture - transubstantiation and point out that when Christ connects eating and drinking with believing in a chapter equally given to those two topics, it behooves us to pay attention.
But hey, that's just my POV on the question.
If you care to clarify just what you were trying to do, I'd be all ears.
"If you care to clarify just what you were trying to do, I'd be all ears."
I don't know if I can. I think you may be the sort of person who thinks of dialog as something like warfare. I have a different sort of personality and see dialog and argumentation as a way to arrive at the truth. I saw you and Christopher Lake engaging in something that looked to me like an argument (the truth-seeking kind not the fighting kind) and I couldn't help but notice that neither of you seemed to me to have come up with what seemed to be a good argument for your respective theories as to what the Bread of Life discourse is about. At the same time, and partially as a result, I thought, you seemed to be "talking past" each other, which always makes me feel frustrated and makes me want to try to help. I was trying to help the both of you by challenging you to substantiate your own arguments. I also wanted to remind you that there are other ways, besides Trent and Zwingli, to understand what the Lord's Supper is, and perhaps other ways to understand the John 6 passage (to Luther it is all about believing, btw, and not about the Lord's Supper at all so thou art in good company) Anyway, Christopher so far has not responded to my challenge, and you began to formulate a positive argument (you talked about context a little) but didn't get very far and mostly just complained to me about transubstantiation.
It really doesn't matter to me, I honestly was trying to help. I have a bad habit of "helping" in unasked-for ways.
SK,
So what you are really saying is that you don't have an opinion on what Jn 6 teaches?
As far as dialog being something like warfare, we are to contend for the truth, without being contentious or compromising.
Do you have a problem with that? CL is promoting after all, the Roman line. Do you buy it?
IOW do we ever move past dialog and argumentation to affirming the truth or does transubstantiation get a pass because it is held sincerely by CL?
Just asking.
cheers
It's not that I don't have an opinion, it's just that I was focusing on yours and Christopher Lake's dialog and thought I could give you both food for thought.
That's a good point about contending (fighting) for the truth being one way to look at argumentation. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned you and I looking at it in different ways.
As for passes, if Christopher Lake needs one from me on transubstantiation, he's welcome to it, but I think he'd be better off thinking it through carefully. Specifically, where does he find it in scripture?
Jude 1:3 ¶Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
I think that should be enough said whatever you're trying to say.
At least I can't figure it out yet.
IOW I get the impression you don't cotton to my approach - whatever that is - and yours is better, as elusive as it appears to be/me.
Fine, but maybe a little self examination would go a long ways besides just with yours truly.
But whatever, my friend.
Neither do I think CL can or will take you up on your offer, but I at least should get props for trying.
I mean, that counts for something in a world where sincerity is the cardinal virtue, right?
RPV and steelikat,
I apologize for my absence from this discussion. I pulled a muscle in my back a few days ago and was in quite intense pain, to the point that it seriously hurt to sit in an upright position for more than a few minutes at my computer. At certain points, I thought I was going to have a heart attack from the pain. Thanks be to God that the problem is now resolved. Before I returned to our discussion, I did, for better or worse, get unwittingly entangled in another dialogue on Facebook, but I'm glad to be back here to continue our exchanges.
Steelikat, as far as where I believe that the Bible teaches transubstantiation, I believe that an important passage in John 6 provide important *pointers* to the developed teaching of the Church on this issue in Sacred Tradition (more on this from Sacred Scripture in a bit)-- similarly to the way that the Bible does not, in and of itself, lay out an *explicitly detailed doctrine* of the Trinity, but by looking at and comparing numerous passages and verses, one can *deduce* the existence of the Trinity.
However, interestingly, unlike the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was taught by bishops of the Church from the first century A.D., the Trinity was debated for centuries *in the Church* (even many bishops were Arians at certain points-- but never the Bishop of Rome, the Pope) until, in the 4th century, thanks to the grace-enabled, grace-empowered efforts of St. Athanasius and the Pope, the matter was declared decisively settled in favor of Trinitarianism, and non-Trinitarians were declared to be heretics.
Anyway, back to John 6 and transubstantiation... (continued in next comment)
"Steelikat, as far as where I believe that the Bible teaches transubstantiation, I believe that an important passage in John 6 provide important *pointers* to the developed teaching of the Church on this issue in Sacred Tradition"
Pretend that you are not talking to RPV but to somebody who sees the doctrine of the Real Presence taught in John 6 but doesn't see Transubstantiation taught there, since it is the specifically the latter that is distinctly Roman Catholic.
Christ's teaching of the "Catholic" understanding of the Eucharist comes, Scripturally speaking, from John 6:35-66. In this passage, Jesus is speaking to His fellow Jews, many of whom have become His followers-- some of them, only for a time, sadly, as the end of this passage shows.
He speaks of Himself as the "living bread," as compared to the manna with which God the Father fed the Jews in the wilderness. This manna only served to sustain, physically, for those who ate it, for a time, but Christ teaches that if one partakes of the living bread, one will never die. This "never dying" is obviously meant in a spiritual sense, given that we all die, physically, eventually-- but yet, there is also the teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that we who persevere to the end, as Christians, *will* be ultimately, eventually, given perfect, resurrected bodies, rather than simply living for eternity as "disembodied souls"-- so in a certain, important, spiritual *and physical* sense, Christians who persevere *will* not eternally die!
As the passage continues, Jesus tells these followers, shockingly, that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, and that if they do not, they will have no life in them. Obviously, the "life" here is in a spiritual sense in this passage-- but are the eating and drinking of His flesh and blood also meant in a primarily, or solely, spiritual sense? In the original Greek, the word that has been translated as "eat" is actually closer to "gnaw"-- and understandably, many of His followers are surprised and shocked, and from the passage, we see that apparently, quite a few of them leave Him as a result of these specific statements about eating and drink in His flesh and blood.
He did not even attempt to stop them. If He had meant His above statements only, or primarily, in a "spiritual," rather than physical, sense, He could have easily told these followers. He did not do so. He allowed the force of His statements to stand, and He let the people leave.
Due to John 6:63, wherein Jesus states that " It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life," many Protestants contest that He did not mean the earlier "flesh, blood, eating, and drinking" to be understood in a physical sense. This fairly short but helpfully detailed article addresses those objections (and others), *Scripturally*, to the Catholic understanding of John 6. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6
Sorry for the typos-- trying to catch up on multiple threads here that I could not return to during my recent time of pain! :-)
Steelikat,
When you speak of believing in the "Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" but not transubstantiation, do you mean the Lutheran concept of consubstantiation, or something else?
I believe that "consubstantiation" is not a "Lutheran concept" at all but a caricature.
I mean that you are unnecessarily wasting your time if you don't even attempt to demonstrate that the Bread of Life Discourse refers specifically to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Your challenge was to show where the early Church taught what ROME now teaches. The Real Presence is what many Protestants teach, so it isn't a Roman distinctive.
CL
If He had meant His above statements only, or primarily, in a "spiritual," rather than physical, sense, He could have easily told these followers.
Read the chapter again. Slowly.
That's exactly what he did.
John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
Never hunger or thirst by coming to and believing in Jesus.
IOW we eat and drink Christ by coming to and believing in him.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Which is why the Jews, as well as Rome, who were stuck on the physical and literal balked in unbelief. They loved their own works and will and their self righteousness and pride too much to come to Christ and believe he was, as Peter confessed, the Son of God with the words of everlasting life.
IOW we are talking about WCF 1:9:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (2PE 1:20,21,ACT 15:15,16)
But I thought you said you used to be reformed.
And you can disregard SK's insinuation that I don't believe in the real presence. I do.
That it is the same thing as transubstantiation may be what the fanboys over at Called To Confusion think, but don't forget Bryan Cross, one of CTC's founders, as a protestant couldn't rebut the Mormon elders at his door. One descends to their level if they are willing to parrot that kind of a non sequitur as a solid proof for Roman orthodoxy, never mind any previous substantial issues in understanding Jn. 6.
Thank you.
RPV:
Did I insinuate you don't believe in the Real Presence? If I did please forgive me, but I don't remember doing that.
Are you talking about this: "Pretend that you are not talking to RPV but to somebody who sees the doctrine of the Real Presence taught in John 6 but doesn't see Transubstantiation taught there."
If you look again I think you will see that if I am insinuating anything it is that you are arguing that John 6 is simply using "eat and drink" as a metaphor for "come to and believe" and is not referring to the sacrament where Christ is Really Present and his flesh and blood is really eaten and drunk.
"Insinuating" implies malevolent intent, however, and perhaps you would rather say that I understood you to be arguing the same.
To elaborate, what I see is Christopher Lake arguing that the Real Presence is taught in the passage and you arguing that the passage is simply using "eat and drink" as a metaphor for "come to and believe."
This is dialectically problematic. Christopher Lake's argument fails because he isn't distinguishing his position from that of many Protestants unless he shows that the passage does not merely teach the Real Presence, but specifically teaches Transubstantiation. That is his challenge, to find Roman Catholic distinctives in the bible.
Your argument, if a good one, would be sufficient to show that Christopher Lake has failed but leaves the impression that Protestants who see the Real Presence (by which I specifically mean that Christ is Really Present in such a way that he is Really and sacramentally given to us to eat and drink) in John 6 are in the same boat as Roman Catholics. I wonder if you really intend to do that.
More to the point I think your argument fails in that you haven't adequately supported it. Remember that it isn't enough to show that the metaphor is there, you must show that it is simply operative throughout the extended discourse.
RPV:
And to explain myself, since this appears to be necessary so you don't think badly of me:
I avoid insinuating anything at all on the internet, but attempt to say precisely what I mean without gratuitous elaboration or hidden meanings. This seems to me to be the proper course given that the peculiar dialect of English that I use is so open to misinterpretation by those who might be inclined to think me malevolent.
Hello SK,
Thank you for your comments.
CL's argument - rather assertion - fails because he is not demonstrating any kind of due diligence in actually examining and interacting with Jn. 6, but is just parroting the standard popish prattle on it.
The problem with your analysis is that you bring in the Real Presence in the sacrament - when it is not there either. Or at least you need to do a better job of specifically pointing it out.
IOW let the text speak for itself.
Again I have to say, I think I have a done a better job of doing just that - partly due to your remarks - then either you or CL.
But regardless, the explanation for Jn. 6:53 from the Dutch Staten Vertaling or States General Bible, called for by the famous 1617 Synod of Dordt reads:
Then Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [That is, except you believe in me, who am to give up my body to death on the cross, and shed my blood for the forgiveness of sin; see v.35. For Christ speaketh not here of the outward eating, which is done in the Lord's Supper, seeing that was not yet instituted at that time, but of spiritual eating. i.e. receiving of Christ by true faith, and thereby being united unto him, which is signified and sealed by the outward eating in the Lord's Supper:]
6:35 reads:
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life, [That is, give spiritual and eternal life] he that cometh to me [that is, he that believeth in me, as Christ himself expoundeth in the latter member of this verse] shall in no wise hunger; [that is, shall be satisfied with all spiritual good; here with firm consolation and hereafter with everlasting joy] and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
IOW Luther and the Dutch Reformed Church are on the other side than you and CL.
If I get a chance, I'll look up what Calvin says.
cordially
"The problem with your analysis is that you bring in the Real Presence in the sacrament - when it is not there either. Or at least you need to do a better job of specifically pointing it out. "
Actually it was Christopher Lake who did that. The problem is (and this is a sufficient reason--though perhaps not the only one--that his argument fails) although he uses the word "transubstantiation" he does nothing to show that transubstantiation is taught in John 6. Unless he can do that, his argument fails, because merely showing the real presence does not show a distinctively Roman doctrine.
Correction,SK.
The argument is over whether you would say, like some protestants you refer to, that the real presence is taught in Jn. 6?
Yes or no?
RPV,
I don't understand what you are getting at by "The argument is over whether you would say..." Do you mean "you" in a general sense or are you talking about me? You don't think I am Christopher Lake, do you?
To clarify, this is my understanding of the argument. Correct me if I've misunderstood something:
In response to the challenge to find a Roman Catholic distinctive in scripture, Christopher Lake (not I!) produced what he says is an argument that transubstantiation is taught in the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6.
You (not I!) countered his argument whith what you say is sufficient evidence that the eating, drinking, food and drink Jesus mentioned in John 6 cannot have anything to do with transubstantiation because they are nothing but an extended metaphor where Jesus uses eating and drinking to mean coming to and believing in Him.
Is that right?
If I am misunderstanding your argument (insofar as it is an argument about John 6), please forgive me and straighten me out. Otherwise, I've explained as best as I can, in various ways, what I see as the critical flaw in your argument as well as what I see as the critical flaw in Christopher's argument. That really is all that I ever intended to do and all that I have done.
Furthermore, in case this isn't clear to you, all the comments I've made subsequent to my comment of 6:54 PM July 10, including this one, have been nothing but attempts on my part to clarify and explain what I said in that original comment. If you do still want to know what I have to say, I encourage you to keep going back to my comment of 18:54 July 10, specifically the second of the two paragraphs, because everything I'm trying to communicate to you is in there. Of course you can re-read the first paragraph if you like but please keep in mind that that paragraph is actually addressed to Christopher and is intended to be a criticism of Christopher's argument not yours.
Here's another approach. I think this could help.
P implies Q.
If you prove Q is true, will that prove P is true? No, it doesn't work both ways.
Now if you understand that logic, replace P with "John 6 is talking about Transubstantiation" and replace Q with "John 6 is talking about The Sacramental Real Presence" and you will see why I think Christopher's argument fails.". Christopher labeled his argument as an argument for P but if you analyze it you will see that it is only an argument for Q (if even that).
Theory 1: "Biblical passage A means X"
Theory 2: "Biblical passage A means Y"
If you prove theory 1, does that disprove theory 2?
No, because biblical passages sometimes have multiple meanings (of course the two meanings could not be precisely contradictory but they could be radically different).
Now if you understand that logic, replace A with "the Bread of Life discourse", X with "is about coming to Christ and believing in Him," and Y with "is about Transubstantiation," and you will see why I think your argument fails. You haven't even attempted as far as I can tell, to exclude the possibility of multiple meanings so no matter how clearly you demonstrate that "eating and drinking" = "coming to Christ and believing in Him" you haven't thereby ruled out the possibility that the passage is also talking about Transubstantiation as a secondary meaning.
Steelikat,
Respectfully, it appears to me that we are talking past each other here, because you seem to be asking me to make an argument for something that I never meant to even claim in this discussion.
You seem to want to know where the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is *explicitly* taught, in an almost word-for-word sense, in Scripture-- but I never claimed it to be the case that transubstantiation is taught *in that way* in Scripture.
As I wrote above in my earlier comment, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist does come, *Scripturally speaking*, from John 6:35-66, in that that this passage provides important *pointers toward* that understanding-- but Catholics obviously do not hold to a "Sola Scriptura" paradigm, and we do not look for everything that we believe to be *very explicitly* set out in the Bible, in the way that you seem to wish for regarding transubstantiation.
I'm sure that you are aware that the Catholic paradigm is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, with the two ( we Catholics believe) not contradicting each other but supporting and informing each other.
Our Sacred Tradition predates the formal codifying of the New Testament into a canon (which occurred in the 4th century A.D.) and, for us, what Sacred Tradition (orally passed down in the Church, a la 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and documented in writings of the early Church Fathers) has to say about the Eucharist is a vital part of understanding and interpreting what Scripture teaches (although not in the very *explicitly detailed* way that you may want) about the Eucharist in John 6.
(continued in next comment)
For example, in terms of Sacred Tradition, from the 2nd century, we see these passages from St. Irenaeus about the Eucharist:
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Even more explicitly, there are these passages-- later but still before the formal codifying of the NT canon-- from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/the-real-presence/
You state that many Protestants believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that you, yourself, believe in the Real Presence. Do you affirm what St. Cyril states about the Eucharist in the above two passages from him? I don't think that Lutherans, or hardly any historic, confessional Protestants, for that matter, could affirm the second passage at all. The Catholic Church does affirm it.
RPV,
I'm going to make a request, in the continued pursuit of charitable dialogue here, that you please read my above two replies to steelikat before reading the rest of this reply to you. I'm hoping that my replies to steelikat will provide a helpful way for your and my dialogue to also move forward as well. (To be clear, I'm not asking you to adopt the paradigm which I set forth to steelikat in my replies-- I know better than that, as a former Calvinist Protestant myself-- but simply to read about that paradigm, in said replies, and think about it.)
Hoping, in charity, that you have read them, I will now proceed with my reply to you. At repeated points in your comments to me in this discussion, you have written, about your interpretations of Scripture, things to the effect of, "I am not saying these things. Christ is saying them."
Again, I was a Calvinist Protestant for years. As such, I understand that you believe your interpretations of Scripture (on such matters as justification and, it seems, the Lord's Supper/Eucharist) to not *be* your interpretations, properly speaking, but rather, the "clear teaching of Scripture."
When it comes to the matter of the Eucharist though, there is a problem. The Reformers themselves, all while working from a base of "Sola Scriptura, vehemently disagreed among themselves about the "clear teaching of Scripture" on the Eucharist. Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, held to an understanding of the Real Presence that is similar (although obviously not identical) to the Catholic understanding. Ulrich Zwingli, another Reformer of the time, had an understanding of the Eucharist that is closer to the "symbolic memorial" view of Baptists.
Each man believed that he held to the clear teaching of Scripture on the Eucharist-- and on the basis of their disagreement, Luther declared Zwingli to not be a Christian, stating, "I am astonished that you wish to consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach much importance to your doctrine."
You seem to believe that your understanding of John 6:35-66 is the clear teaching of Scripture on the Eucharist. Does your understanding of Scripture on this matter agree with that of Martin Luther, or Zwingli, or another Reformer, such as Calvin? They disagreed with *each other*, again, *all* working from "Sola Scriptura"-- and they did *not* treat the matter as a "secondary" issue.
What is the source of your confidence regarding your own exegetical view of the Eucharist? How is it that you are (seemingly) sure that Luther and Calvin were wrong in considering the issue to be, not a "secondary issue" of the Christian faith, but an essential, first-order one? The latter view is actually the truly "historically Protestant" one-- *from* Luther and Calvin, who strongly believed in "Sola Scriptura."
You claim that my view of the Eucharist is supported by Scripture and is simply "popish prattle." I believe that your view is much more heavily influenced by the Westminster Confession than Scripture. However, it is clear (no pun intended), from the example of the Reformers themselves, that this discussion on the Eucharist cannot simply be settled by appeals to Scripture alone. Luther and Zwingli went down that road 500 years ago and, to say the least, it did not end in Christian consensus for them, despite the fact that they each disagreed (in different ways, respectively) with the Catholic Church on the Eucharist.
P.S. RPV,
Obviously, in the last section of my above reply to you, I meant to type, "You claim that my view of the Eucharist is *not* supported by Scripture and is simply 'popish prattle.'" Sorry for the typo. It's very late here...
Christopher,
The challeng you accepted was to find the early church teaching a Roman Catholic distinctive.
You say that the John 6 passage is only pointing to something, not teaching it explicitly. Well OK, is it pointing to Transubstantiation? If you just show that it points to the Real Presence and not Transubstantiation, you haven't helped your case at all, since the real Presence isn't disputed here.
It doesn't matter if it's explicit teaching or mere pointing, if what it's pointing to or teaching explicitely is not a Roman Catholic distinctive, you haven't met the challenge.
The same thing could be said of your extrabiblical citations. Even the strongest one, the Cyril quote, seems ambiguous to me, and one or two of the others seem to me to possibly even hurt your case, but I suppose I could admit they are ambiguous too.
You've taken on a more difficult challenge than you realized, I think. Even a very clear teaching of the Real Presence does not help you, since that is not what is disputed. Furthermore, any suggestion that there is still bread and wine hurts your case.
SK,
As per WCF 1:9 again, not only is the meaning of Scripture one, the clearer places interpret the darker.
Further, just because men wear pants and Lady Gaga wears pants doesn't mean there aren't errors in fact as well as in the form of argument.
Essentially you seem to be saying that just because I have pointed out that Christ has made the connection between believing and eating/drinking in the Bread of Life discourse of Jn. 6, specifically in v. 35, that does not rule out that transubstantiation, but also the real presence could be, if not in fact are also taught in the same passage.
OK, fair enough. But where do you see either? After all, I don't have to prove a negative, but if you insist upon it, my argument/comments also don't prove that the pope is antichrist or that green tea is green. So what?
I've already interacted with the text more than any other party in the discussion (if anything CL quotes the ECFs in place of Scripture), but if you insist, what is the climax of the section with Jn. 6:68,69? Does Peter affirm transubstantiation, the real presence or that Jesus is the Christ after everybody leaves because of the hard sayings of Jesus? To ask is to answer.
CL,
You may have at one time affirmed reformed protestantism, but it is pretty clear from your assertions, questions and objections that you have not only chosen to ignore Scripture's authority and sufficiency, but also its clarity.
IOW vide WCF Chapt. 1:7 regarding the clarity of Scripture:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[2 Pet. 3:16] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[Psalm 119:105].
But for that matter I might as well ask you, how do you REALLY Know that the Roman Church is the true church? Or better yet, that two plus two really equals four?
Which is all to say that Rome (and by implication all who parrot the party line) arrogantly assumes that its claims for its own authority are clearer and more weightier than the claims of Scripture for its own authority, sufficiency and clarity. This all the while Rome pretends to appeal to those same Scriptures to support her claims, which pretty much amounts to the same thing as waving a magic wand around and quoting ECFs out of context, never mind Scripture.
As for the errors of the WCF, if you would care to break a lance demonstrating the same, feel free. I won't be holding my breath in suspense waiting for the outcome.
Thank you.
RPV
"just because I have pointed out that Christ has made the connection between believing and eating/drinking in the Bread of Life discourse of Jn. 6, specifically in v. 35, that does not rule out that transubstantiation, but also the real presence could be, if not in fact are also taught in the same passage. "
That's right. I suppose that's not really a problem for you since I don't think Christopher has made any kind of a case for transubstantiation being in the passage. I guess I would say your argument is a good one as far as it goes but in the context of Christopher's challenge, is is gratuitous. Remember what this is all about? Christopher was challenged to find a Roman distinctive in scripture. Did he? If he did not, a completely adequate response on your part is to show that he did not. Coming up with alternate interpreations is both unnecessary for you--and unless they exclude his interpreation--don't really accomplish anything.
I don't know what the climax of the passage consisting of verses 68 and 69 is, if that's really what you are asking. It's only two short sentences uttered by Peter, so it really doesn't seem long enough to me to have a climax. Maybe the second of the two sentences is the climax of the two sentences as a whole but that seems like a weird way to look at it to me.
The climax of the Bread of Life discourse as a whole is verses 53-58, in my opinion. That would make everything following to about the end of the chapter an anticlimax.
Two comments, SK,
In your first you duck - if not implicitly deny - that the meaning of Scripture is not many or manifold but one. Much more the clear interprets the unclear. Hence v. 35 as the controlling hermeneutic in anything having to do with eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood.
But if Scripture can have more than one meaning, all hail the return to the medieval hermeneutic of the four senses of Scripture, which did more to obscure the truth than to reveal it in the era that proceeded the Reformation.
More to the point, one would think as protestants who affirm perspicuity, one is called to say what the Bread of Life discourse actually teaches, rather than rest on the fact that a romanist hasn't proven it teaches transubstantiation. But maybe the next one that shows up in the combox might? Nyet.
Secondly, in v. 68,69 after all has transpired, Peter makes confession of Christ. Call it what you will, anticlimatic or no, Peter believes Christ is who he says he is, after Christ repeatedly chides the Jews all through the Bread of Life discourse for refusing to do just that, believe in him. I find that a striking confirmation of what Christ is teaching. Why didn't he affirm transubstantiation or the real presence? Because it wouldn't make any sense.
Thank you.
RPV:
"In your first you duck - if not implicitly deny - that the meaning of Scripture is not many or manifold but one..."
Sorry, that was not my intent. Sometimes I am too economical with words. In my criricism, I was using "simple" in contrast with "complex"-- What I was trying to say is that the metaphor works, but it doesn't work throughout the entire dialogue. I wrote a short essay explaining this (mainly for My own benefit, to verify that what I was saying to you was correct) but I don't have blog to post it in. I don't think that's necessary, though, if you look again and try to apply the metaphor to some of the subsequent verses (53-58, i believe, but im not sure) you'll see that it doesn't consistently work, so there has to be something other than that particular metaphor going on in the extended dialog.
Again, however, all that really doesn't matter, though, since Christopher has failed to make his case.
"But if Scripture can have more than one meaning..."
Sigh..., you are going to insist that I work, aren't you; and If I don't you'll say I'm a ducker and worse. I hope you are doing this out of an unselfish love for me, that is looking out for my good, in preference for your own good--otherwise there's no doubt you're wasting not only my time but your own. I shouldn't whine though, as hard as typing on an ipad is it must be harder for Christipher. I will say, for the record, though, so you know exactly where Im coming from, that uninvited or not, my trying to help you and Christopher with problems with your arguments does not morally oblige me, under pain of being called a ducker, to entertain you by arguing with you about who knows how many various related topics of your choosing. When you say I "duck" you do not tell the truth. I simply did not ask for this.
Ill make this easier for myself by typing quickly withut correcting, since my audienxe is almost certainly one person, and Im doing nthis not because i think theres any reason for it but only to meet your demands and avoiding having you call me names and stuff, i wont try to clean up the typos.
I was not using "more than one meaning" in that way. What I was alluding to is that your metaphor idoes not work throughoty the extended dialog, so in later verses there must be something else going on. So ot is not multiple meanings in the sense if multiple meanings if a single thought or single verse, but multiple meanings in the sense that there must be something else going on than your metaphor in subsequent verses (53-58)
RPV:
"Why didn't he affirm (1) transubstantiation or the (2) real presence? Because it wouldn't make any sense"
It would have been impossible for him to affirm either of those things:
1. "why didnt he affirm T?" Both you and Christopher have utterly failed to show any evidence that the discourse refers to transubstantiation. Furthermore you don't believe in Transubstantiation, unless you were just pretending you didn't, so how would it help you for you to know why Peter didn't talk about transubstantiation? Your question (part 1 that is) doesnt make sense.
2. "why didnt he affirm the R P?" There is zero reason to think Peter at this point in time had any understanding of the Real Presence. That understanding would obviously have to have come later, at the last supper and in Christ's post resurrection ministry.
If you try to reread the discourse like a story you've never heard before, without any preconceptions, I think your reaction will be something like "i don't think the disciples really understood what Jesus was talking about or rather they only understood part of it, and that's why most of them left--they thought he was nuts or something. The ones who stayed are the ones who trusted Him."
In fact I assign you the task of doing just that and spending at least an hour at the task. If you dont do it it will only prove you "duck" goose...gander :-)
To your gracious "thank you" I say "your welcome" but I will add an ornery "it seems like your wasting my time." i hope what Im telling you is really helping you insome wway, and Ill really be annoyed if you tell me it didn't help you. Rememer what this is about: I stepped in (uninvited, I know), to help you you and Christopher in two very specific ways, I did NOT step in with the offer "rPV, I will engage you in an argument on the topic of your choosing, on your terms, and for your entertainment" therefore i am not morally obliged to do that for you and you are not morally justified in telling people I "duck." You can tell people I "butt in" uninvited with unasked for help and I'll be forced to acknowledge that your accusation is fair.
Steelikat,
Respectfully, I would hope that you can understand that, to a *Catholic*, for you to even imply that John 6 might somehow point to the "Real Presence" but not "transubstantiation" sounds like something close to nonsense-- due to the obvious fact that, for a Catholic, the "Real Presence" and "transubstantiation" are intrinsically inseparable.
Any Christian can affirm that he/she believes that John 6 teaches the "Real Presence." The issue at hand is the *meaning* of those two words. Martin Luther's understanding of the R.P. is not quite the same as that of the Catholic Church. (Close but not the same.) Calvin's understanding of the R.P. differs *significantly* with both the Catholic Church *and* his fellow Reformer, Luther. All three affirm that something called the "Real Presence" is either very strongly implied, or taught outright (I go with the former), in John 6. Yet all three obviously have different understandings of what "something" is.
Personally, if you are going to say that transubstantiation is not strongly pointed to in John 6, it seems to me that you would also have to affirm that *your own* understanding of the "Real Presence" is not strongly pointed to John 6. Are you willing to say that? If not, why not?
If you *are* willing to say it, then do you believe that 1. It greatly matters what is meant by "Real Presence" and 2. That there is any *objective way* of discovering that meaning, given that Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed all affirm the words "Real Presence" but disagree on what they mean? (Again, with Lutherans and the Reformed significantly disagreeing about the meaning of the R.P., even while *agreeing* on Sola Scriptura..! The principle of Sola Scriptura was not even able to establish true unity among the *original Reformers* on this issue, as well as on the extent of predestination and perseverance-- the differences still being seen today in the *very existence* of Lutherans and TULIP-adhering Presbyterians, as different Protestant ecclesial/theological systems.)
"I would hope that you can understand that, to a *Catholic*, for you to even imply that John 6 might somehow point to the "Real Presence" but not "transubstantiation" sounds like something close to nonsense-"
OK. Does John 6 say that it sounds like something close to nonsense? Show me. Remember the challenge you accepted. You have to demonstrate that a Roman distinctive is taught in the early church.
"Any Christian can affirm that he/she believes that John 6 teaches the "Real Presence." The issue at hand is the *meaning* of those two words."
The onus you have accepted is to show that there is something in John 6 that only Roman Catholics would want to affirm. If that something is Transubstantiation that you need to show language in John 6 that points to Transubstantiation.
"Are you willing to say that? If not, why not?"
Your comments of July 16, 7:38 PM adequately show that John 6 is probably pointing to the Real Presence. I could take the time to give you more reasons but that's good enough for now.
If you say "but if it points to the real presence it must point to transubstantiation"
My reply would be "So you say. Show me where John 6 says that if points to the real presence it must point to transubstantiation."
I won't engage you in debates on the topics of your choosing. I've given in to some extent to RPVs demands fto do that and now I regret it. My goal is to show that you have not succeded to demonstrate that Transubstantiation is taught in the early church. I think I have achieved my goal.
RPV,
I want to be crystal-clear about my previous theological/ecclesial convictions as a Protestant, simply so that you will know where I stood. I did strongly affirm Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida. I also enthusiastically affirmed the "five points" of Calvinism, as I believed them to reflect the soteriological teaching of Scripture.
Ecclesiastically, I was a "Reformed Baptist," although I know that many Reformed people would deny that a Reformed Baptist is "truly Reformed." I am not interested to pursue that particular discussion here. It suffices to say that I did hold very much to the Reformation principles of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and, of course, to the other 3 of the Sola's, which I still do affirm now-- all three-- as a Catholic.
I came to disagree with Sola Fide based, largely, on study of Scripture itself, and also on the distressing inadequacy (which I increasingly discerned *from studying Scripture itself*), of the Reformed attempts to exegete Biblical passages which would appear to refute Sola Fide. I accepted these Reformed exegetical explanations of such passages for years, but the more closely that I studied the whole of the Bible, the exegesis appeared, increasingly, to be much more like *eisegesis* in the service of a Reformed framework of Scripture. More and more, the clear Biblical passages and verses seemed to be the ones "refuting" Sola Scriptura, while the ones "supporting" it, and the Reformed exegesis around the whole issue, seemed less and less obvious to me-- again, *according to my study of Scripture and Reformed commentaries*.
(continued in next comment)
It troubled me that Sola Fide seemed increasingly unclear from Scripture itself. To be sure, I had earnestly, passionately believed in and defended SS for years. I quoted all of the passages and verses which you could easily quote to me-- while asserting to me that they represent the clear teaching of Scripture, and not your own interpretation of Scripture. I have been where you are and believed what you believed, regarding both Sola Fide. Having seen in Scripture what I have seen, I can never go back. Scripture itself led me away from that position.
I should say, however, that if I had stopped there, I would have been doubting Sola Fide based largely on *my* understanding of Scripture (and Reformed commentaries), which would have made me, strangely, a sort of "anti-Protestant Protestant"-- due to the fact that I was still thinking and operating according to Protestant principles of interpreting Scripture, with the only difference being that now, the "non-Sola Fide passages" were increasingly, undeniably the clear ones to me. Perhaps I would have been able to find a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox ecclesial community which denied Sola Fide from reading of Scripture alone, but I was not aware of one. In any event, it was quite an interesting place for me to be, having come to disbelieve one of the 5 Sola's based upon study of Scripture itself-- by comparing Scripture with Scripture, as a Protestant is supposed to do!
However, I also could not find the Lutheran/Reformed concept of Sola Fide in the writings of the early Church Fathers... other than in how Protestant apologists quoted them out of context! I also saw that these men, such as St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasuis held many other beliefs which could not be described in any way as "Protestant." Three of these beliefs were 1. The ecclesiastical importance of apostolic succession, from Christ and the first apostles, and continuing, and 2. Sacramental confession and penance, and 3. Purgtory, or something very much like it, and very unlike Protestant thinking.
As both the evidence of Scripture and of Church history accumulated, I simply could no longer, in good conscience, affirm Protestantism. Scripture convinced of the wrongness of Sola Fide, and Scripture and Church history convinced me that Sola Scriptura is wrong (and destructive), and that the Catholic Church is what (Whose, actually, to be precise) she claims to be.
RPV,
P.S. There are a few typos in my last comment to you. I hope that the substance of what I wrote is still intelligible. If you need clarification, please let me know.
RPV
Verse 51: "come to and believe in my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world"
It's not "believe in me" anymore, "its believe in my flesh"
The metaphor is starting not to work
53 "come to the flesh of the son of man and believe in his blood"
What? If your metaphor is still operative, that is what it is saying.
54 Again its talking about coming to and believing not in Christ, but specifically in Christ's flesh and blood, if it is the same metaphor as in verse 35.
55 My flesh is real food because its something you can come to, and my blood is reallmdrink because it is something you can believe in
Huh?
In the first part of the discourse, Jesus very explicitly is using "eat and drink" to mean "believe in me."
Starting in verse 51, though, the metaphor no longer works. Something related but different is being talked about.
Given that his words at this point ( 51-58) clearly foreeshadow his words at the last supper, they most likely have something to do with the last supper.
Steelikat,
I did not say, anywhere, that John 6, itself, "says something close to nonsense."
I said that for you to assert that John 6 points to "the Real Presence but not transubstantiation" sounds like nonsense to a Catholic, because for a Catholic, the R.P. *entails* transubstantiation, and vice versa.
What I am saying, ultimately, is that neither transubstantiation *nor your understanding* of the "Real Presence" is explicitly taught, word-for-word, in the Scripture. However, I do see that *either* understanding could very plausibly be extrapolated from a quite straight-forward reading of John 6.
In that light, how does one settle the issue? In all honesty, at least between Lutherans and Catholics, I don't believe that Scripture alone *does*, or even *can*, definitively settle this particular issue.
However, reading the early Church Fathers does provide some further light on this subject of the Eucharist in the early church. I must say that I am sincerely astonished that you see St. Cyril's statements on the Eucharist as being "ambiguous." How so? Let's look at the passages again:
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/the-real-presence/
Carefully reading these two passages, St. Cyril states that the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine becomes His blood. Explicitly, he (Cyril) exhorts his readers to no longer consider the "apparent bread" and "apparent wine" as even *being* those things (anymore).
Lutherans believe that the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine, while *also being* the true body and blood of Christ at the same time-- do they not? (Please correct me if I am mistaken.)
St. Cyril explicitly argues against such an understanding. He argues for something that, read in a straight-forward way, is what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist.
Steelikat wrote, “If you just show that [the John 6 passage] points to the Real Presence and not Transubstantiation, you haven't helped your case at all, since the real Presence isn't disputed here.”
Hi Steelikat!
Here’s my take… My own vision of transubstantiation in John 6 is informed by the other words of Jesus where He says, “This is My Body.”
Luther pressed the word “is” against Zwingli, and we of course agree with Luther on this point. But we take Luther a step farther and use his own argument against him, pressing against him the word “this.” A real presence sacramentology that does not include the notion of a transformation of the bread itself into the Body of Jesus strikes a middle position that destroys the meaning of the word “this” when combined with the rest of what Jesus says: ‘This is My Body.’ If a non-transubstantiation type of real presence were true, we would expect something more like the words, “Here is My Body.” Either “this” and “is” combine to form a perfect metaphorical meaning, or “this” and “is” combine to form a perfect transubstantiation-type real-presence meaning. If we’ve already established a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then since Jesus said, “This is My Body,” we believe that what we perceive with the senses—the “this”—really is His Body. Thomas Aquinas makes this same point, and it makes a lot of sense to me: “Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. […] [T]his position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: ‘This is My body,’ which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: ‘Here is My body’ ” (Summa Theologica, 3.75.2).
RPV!
I appreciate your pointing to the conclusion of the discourse where Peter confesses that Jesus has “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Our salvation is found in placing our faith and trust in the words and promises of Christ. But in John 6 we have the Passover (as Steelikat mentioned) and the multiplication of the loaves and the believing community for whom the gospel was written all providing a backdrop to and context for when it is that we experience this fulfillment and life in the words of Christ. And if we hold on to what we have attained here in John 6, and understand it in light of the Road to Emmaus encounter in Luke 24, we’ll come to see that the life that we receive from the words of Christ is consummated when we receive Christ in the breaking of the bread. Although these disciples had received a sermon from Christ’s own lips on all of the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Himself (greatest sermon in the history of the world!), the disciples said that Christ was only known to them in the breaking of the bread, and not before then; and to know Christ is the very basis of eternal life (cf. John 17:3). In light of Luke 24, and keeping in mind the Passover background of John 6, the connection between the words of Christ and the Eucharist of Christ can be expressed in this way: the words of Christ are a promise of and a preparation for, and they also endow with meaning, the life that is received from participating in the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The one who believes in Christ has eternal life precisely because this same person is receiving Christ in the Eucharist through faith. Or we might say that the words and the sacrament are two different ways of receiving the same life of Christ, with the latter being the more powerful experience and a fulfillment of the former.
John 6, Luke 24, and the words of Christ at the Last Supper all harmoniously come together to express our Catholic faith regarding transubstantiation. This is probably all that I have for this topic that might be helpful. Christopher can speak for me. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
Peter:
"...says: ‘This is My Body.’ If a non-transubstantiation type of real presence were true, we would expect something more like the words, 'Here is My Body.”"
I don't see it. Maybe Aquinas's argument works better in Latin than English. If Jesus was telling his disciples "this" (referring to the bread he was showing to them) "is my Body" then "this", not "here" is the best word to use. "here" is too vague. Does that prove transubstantiation? I don't see it; but it surely excludes Zwingli.
When Aquinas starts getting into substance and accidents many Protestants would protest "Aristotelian pseudo-philosophy". While I have too much respect for The Philosopher to say that, the protest does get at the most critical issue with The Doctor's argument, and some other arguments he has.
But bravo for for bringing Aquinas into the discussion!
""I did not say, anywhere, that John 6, itself, "says something close to nonsense."
Exactly, that's the problem. Telling us that YOU think it's close to nonsense to affirm the real presence without affirming transubstantiation wont do; you have to show us that John 6 (or some other early church document) says it's close to nonsense to affirm the Real presence without affirming transubstantiation.
"What I am saying, ultimately, is that neither transubstantiation *nor your understanding* of the "Real Presence" is explicitly taught, word-for-word, in the Scripture."
How about this: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'this is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.'"
Christ was explicitely teaching his disciples SOMETHING word-for-word. You say it's not Transubstantiation; well, then what is it?
I'll remind you again what you said you were going to do: you said you would show a Roman Catholic distinctive taught by the early church. John 6 is not helping you at all.
As I said, the Cyril quote is the only one you offered that seems to be saying what you need it to say, and even that seems ambiguous to me:
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that;"
What does "simply" mean here?
"...the apparent bread is not bread..."
That helps your case
" partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul”
That doesn't help you case so much. Is Cyril contradicting himself?
I haven't read the work you cited. I guess If the experts on such things say Cyril is teaching transubstantiation, I'll have to accept that he was. So far you have one document from the early church where you've shown that a Roman Catholic distinctive is found, specifically: "the apparent bread is not bread". I suppose that you can now just say "I accomplished what I set out to do" but I think we both know that RPV is not going to be impressed.
The above is a slightly edited version of something I posted earlier. There was a serious problem with it that I fixed.
Seriatum)
SK,
1. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There are - take your pick - moral/logical/reasonable obligations to support/back up your criticism if you expect people to listen to you in the first place, much less profit from your comments if you are in fact correct in your criticisms. I of course, deny the last, but I have had to keep taking another look. (And I looked at Calvin and CL ain't gonna like it. He doesn't say what CL said he says about the RP)
2. If anything, one might reasonably expect Peter to confirm/confess exactly what the BoL discourse is all about in v.69. Neither does he disappoint us, but confesses in the name of the apostles that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
As in why wouldn't he confess transubstantiation or the RP is that was what Jesus was really talking about, rather than believing in Jesus?
Discursus
According to William Perkin's Reformed Catholic (1604)on how neere protestants may come to the church of Rome on various points of religion and where they must ever depart from them distinguishes the protestant real presence from the roman transubstantiation by saying the first is mystical and spiritual and the second is local, bodily and substantial (carnal) p.179.
CL,
1. You are crystal clear that you reject Sola Fide, but you neglect to give us your reasons for that other than you couldn't find it in Scripture. That's not an argument, that's a story/testimony. So what/not good enough.
2. You have already demonstrated no substantial grasp of protestant doctrine regardless of your previous bona fides of membership in protestant bodies. Yes, we know you don't accept those doctrine, but you haven't effectively demonstrated - other than asserting it is so - the errors of Sola Scriptura, not to mention the hambone appeal to 2 Thess. 2:15 in order to conflate sacred Roman Tradition with Scripture.
Regarding the last, it's called historico-grammatical. The historical context of 2 Thess. 2:15 is the apostolic church in which both oral(waning) and written (increasing) preaching/teaching/revelation exist. Grammatically parsed, Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the apostolic teaching regardless of how they received them, whether oral - or written - because . . . . content wise they were the same. IOW if we had either one or the other, we wouldn't need its opposite. But we have the apostolic written tradition in the NT - ergo there is no need of the oral. Even before we get to 2 Tim. 3:16,17 which categorically declares the sufficiency of Scripture to test all good works, even that of oral tradition.
SK
Another fail. Read Jn 6:51-58 again.
The mentions of flesh and blood in the entire segment are bookended in v.51 and v.58 with Christ defining/connecting both to bread/Jesus.
And in that he has already told us what he means by eating bread . . . the Berean reader will connect the dots. The Jewish/Popish/unbelieving reader will . . . . but you know the routine.
Pete,
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
What does the text actually say? No fair peeking ahead and bringing that back into the passage when Pope Peter already has told us what we are to understand from the passage in v. 69.
Besides as numerous commentators pointed out, the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted and without faith in Christ, the sign, seal and symbol of the supper is meaningless.
Unless of course, ala First Communion you actually eat and drink the transubstantiated Christ. As does the mouse who breaks into the sacristy looking for food.
But you have to go to the Called To Confusion site for folks that believe that.
(Man, all these mugwumps jumping up around here is almost enough to make you break down and start filling the combox with extracts from Cartwright's 1618 Confutations of the Rhemists Translation, Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament so Farre as they Containe Manifest Impieties, Heresies, Idolatries, Superstition, Prophanesse, Treasons, Slanders, Absurdities, Falsehoods and other evills.)
Thank you
RPV:
"There are - take your pick - moral/logical/reasonable obligations to support/back up your criticism"
OK. I'll try, but you'll have to help me. Here is my criticism, laid out as a narrative but in a more orderly fashion than narratives are usually presented, so that you can point to, using paragraph numbers, the things that you disagree with or find need support from me.
First of all, some definitions that I assumed but may not have explicitly mentioned:
Definition A: A gratuitous response to an argument is one that is unnecessary and does nothing to show that the argument must be false.
Definition B: A Roman Catholic distinctive is a doctrine taught by the Roman Catholic church that is not taught as doctrine by any historically mainstream Protestant Churches.
1: You challenged Christopher Lake to show a Roman Catholic distinctive believed in the early Church.
2: Christopher Lake accepted your challenge.
3. Christopher Lake made what he presented to be an argument that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is pointed to in the Bread of Life discourse.
4. Christopher Lake represented his argument as a partial fulfillment of the challenge.
5. Your direct response to this argumentation was to show that the Bread of Life discourse uses "eating and drinking" as a metaphor for "coming to and believing."
6. Your argumentation was successful, in the sense that you did demonstrate the metaphor.
7. I told you that I thought your argumentation was successful in the sense that you demonstrated the metaphor.
8. I asserted that Christopher Lake did not demonstrate that the Bread of Life passage pointed specifically to transubstantiation, that none of the argumentation he used even at a surface level demonstrated a Roman Catholic distinctive.
9. I asserted that your argumentation did nothing to logically rule out the existence of Transubstantiation in the Bread of Life passage. I did not try to prove my assertion to you, since it seemed pretty obvious to me. I hoped that it would seem obvious to you.
10. I said to you that 8 and 9 made your criticism of Christopher Lake's argument gratuitous.
11. Your response to 10, after I had reiterated it several times and phrased it in different ways since it seemed to me you weren't understanding my criticism, was finally "fair enough."
12. You then demanded of me that I show you how I see transubstantiation or the real presence in the bread of life discourse.
13 I balked at agreeing to meet your demand, since all I had set out or promised to do was show you a logical flaw with your argumentation, which promise I fully discharged. S
14 Showing you how I saw the real presence would be pointless, I said, since that isn't a Roman Catholic distinctive.
15. Showing you how I saw Transubstantiation, I reasoned to myself (I don't think I said this to you but I hate to insult intelligent people by going overboard on stating things the obvious) would in the first place be impossible for me.
16 Showing you how I saw transubstantiation in the Bread of Life discourse would, if I were hypothetically able to do so, be also pointless, since it would do nothing to support my criticism of your argumentation. Remember, it was not I who was arguing for transubstantiation in the Bread of Life discourse, the only thing that I tried to add to the discussion was trying to show two specific flaws in yours and Christopher's argumentation.
OK. Using paragraph numbers, can you show me what you have a problem with and how it is that you want me to support my criticism? Perhaps the first thing you should do is tell me what you think my criticism is. That way we can see if we are both on the same page.
RPV,
"If anything, one might reasonably expect Peter to confirm/confess exactly what the BoL discourse is all about in v.69."
Perhaps that's true. I hadn't thought about it and won't at this time since my criticism was specifically in regards to your argument that because the "eating and drinking = coming to and believing" metaphor is in the passage it is impossible for transubstantiation to also be in the passage. Before I do anything else, I consider it an imperative to try harder to support my criticism as you have asked me to do.
RPV:
"SK Another fail. Read Jn 6:51-58 again."
OK, I will. I'll try to phrase it a little more clearly this time:
Let's say that the metaphor is strictly in operation in verses 51 through 58. Here's what those verses mean in that case:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. Whoever (comes to me) will live forever. (The thing that you are to come to and believe in) is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (apparently they didn't understand that he meant he was giving His flesh for them to come to and believe in)
53. Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you (come to) the flesh of the Son of Man and (believe in) his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever (comes to) my flesh and (believes in) my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is really (something to come to) and my blood is (a real thing to believe in).
56. Whoever (comes to) my flesh and (believes in) my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who (comes to and believes in) me will live because of me.
58. "This" is the (thing worthy of coming to and believing) that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever (comes to and believes in "this" will live forever.
I put "this" in quotes since it is not definitively specified what the referent of the demonstrative is referring to. Was Jesus pointing to Himself as he said it, or did he mean "my flesh and my blood?" Grammatically and simplistically the most likely answer is the latter, but the former would refer back to verses 35-40 (himSELF not his flesh and blood), tying everything together in a rhetorically neat way.
There. Does that help? Can you see why I don't think your metaphor works throughout the entire discourse? If you don't just "see it," I don't think I can explain it to you. It is not always possible for a man to explain something that seems very obvious to him, except to describe it and hope the person he is describing it to will at least have an inkling...
I am telling you this, by the way, not to support my criticism of your argument but merely to give you some background information as to where I'm coming from with regards to how I read the passage as well as to give you a more specific example of what I meant when I talked about believing your metaphor is the correct one while at the same time thinking there's more to it than just the metaphor.
RPV: Or to say it briefly:
In verses 35 - 50, when Jesus is talking about himself being food and drink, the metaphor works perfectly and, isolated from the discourse as a whole, gives me no reason to think that Jesus is talking about the Lord's Supper.
In verses 51 - 57, when Jesus talks not about himself being food and drink but specifically about his FLESH and BLOOD being food and drink, the metaphor doesn't seem to quite work anymore, or if it does work it is pointing to something beyond believing, it is pointing to Christ's Flesh and Blood, specifically.
It would not be enough, therefore, for me to explain the metaphor as simply "eating and drinking = believing," without any further elaboration. if I am going to make the metaphor work throughout the entire discourse I have to explain what the talk of Christ's flesh and blood is all about. The only thing that I can think of that would work is the Last Supper discourse. I am encouraged to think that might be the answer because of the timing (the Bread of Life discourse is a sermon that occurred around the time of the passover).
RPV:
"I of course, deny the last, but I have had to keep taking another look."
OK. Now we are getting somewhere. I guess I misunderstood your "fair enough."
Here is my criticism again, in my words, of course, since those are the only ones I have access to. I will try to lay it out in a more orderly fashion, though and will elaborate a little (which, come to think of it, may be the only support you are looking for).
Christopher gave us what he claimed (but which claim he later partially backed away from) was something that pointed SPECIFICALLY to transubstantiation, a Roman Catholic distinctive.
I said that the logical force of his arguments, only point to the real presence (if even that), which is not a Roman Catholic distinctive. I did not elaborate and will not, unless you think I am wrong and that Christopher Lake DID show that the discourse points specifically to transubstantiation.
Let's call this Proposition 1. I'm going to assume that you agree with me, so I won't elaborate or try to support it: Christopher Lake failed to show that Transubstantiation is pointed to in the Bread of Life discourse.
The argument of yours that I was criticizing consisted of showing that John 6 uses "eat and drink" as a metaphor for "come to and believe." (I know you also had arguments for why transubstantiation is wrong--I wasn't criticizing those),
Proposition 2: The Bread of Life discourse specifies a metaphor, that is: "Eating and drinking" = "Coming to and Believing."
Proposition 3. The Bread of Life discourse is a somewhat extended narrative and sermon.
Proposition 4: The Bread of Life discourse is somewhat repetitive, even remarkably repetitive.
Proposition 5: It is possible for a narrative and discourse, the length of the Bread of Life passage, even as repetitive as it is, to specify a metaphor and also say other things, in addition to the single precise proposition (or imperative) pointed to by the metaphor.
Proposition 6: It is logically possible for a narrative and discourse the length of the Bread of Life passage to both specify the metaphor in question and the proposition or imperative the metaphor points to and ALSO point to Transubstantiation.
Conclusion A: Your argumentation failed to demonstrate that the Bread of Life discourse necessarily cannot point to transubstantiation in addition to the other things it points to.
Conclusion B: Your argumentation was entirely unnecessary and gratuitous (because of proposition 1).
Here's how you can help me do what I am morally obligated to do: support my criticism. Indicate specifically how my criticism fails, and if you are correct I will be grateful for your pointing out the error--if I don't agree with you I will try to clarify what I mean or support it better.
Please don't demand that I find support for the real Presence in John 6, since as you can see that is irrelevant to my criticisms of Christopher Lake's' argument and your objection to his argument. If it is necessary for me, in order to support my criticism, to find some proposition other than the one specifically and directly pointed to by the metaphor, I will pick one that is non-controversial, so as not to side-track my purpose.
I had to delete and repost two comments, because I forgot "nots" and that made them mean the opposite of what I intended them to mean.
Thanks SK,
This shan't take long.
1. John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
In the above Christ makes the connection between coming/believing and eating and drinking the Bread of Life.
In 6:51 he goes on to make the connection between himself as the living bread and his flesh.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
2. Further you can no more come to/believe in the Bread of life than you can come to/believe in his flesh and blood.
Consequently your objection is null and void.
3. I already replied to the "critical flaw" in my argument.
I don't have to prove a negative; that the passage doesn't prove the Boston trains run on time. That is either CL's or your responsibility. If the passage teaches transubstantiation or the RP, have at it. Show us.
D-e-m-o-n-s-t-r-a-t-e it.
So far we have seen nothing of the sort.
4.Yet in as much as transubstantiation is similar to the carnal, literal and wooden understanding in Jn. 6 by the Jews of Christ as the living bread and eating his flesh and blood, so too transubstantiation is a carnal understanding of Jn.6 which misses Christ's emphasis on believing in him.
Again:
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
But don't take my word for it. What did the pope say?
John 6:68,69 Then Simon Peter answered him ... we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
RPV
"Further you can no more come to/believe in the Bread of life than you can come to/believe in his flesh and blood...Consequently your objection is null and void."
I don't understand what you mean but that may be OK.
"I don't have to prove a negative; that the passage doesn't prove the Boston trains run on time. That is either CL's or your responsibility."
That's right. The burden of proof is on Christopher (leave me out of it, I am not obliged to make his argument for him). Since he failed to show that the passage teaches or points to transubstantiation, your argumentation in reply is gratuitous.
RPV,
I hope you understand that when I repeatedly said "your argument is gratuitous" and you repeatedly said "I don't have to prove a negative" the two of us were saying exactly the same thing except that I was adding an implied "so why do you try?"
Steelikat,
In one of your most recent comments above (relative to the last time that I commented here), you assert that I failed to even show that John 6 *points to* transubstantiation. This is simply, and only, an interpretive *assertion* on your part-- an assertion that does not follow from a careful reading of the actual words of John 6 at all.
I happily admitted that, in terms of a straight-forward reading of the text, John 6:35-66 can quite plausibly be understood as *pointing to* either your view *or* transubstantiation (although not so much to the Zwinglian symbolic memorial view), but it seems that that still does not satisfy you. You seem to feel the need to continually assert that John 6 does not even *point to* transubstantiation, well after I have happily admitted that it does *not explicitly* teach the doctrine, in a word-for-word, systematic way. In a matter of textual/linguistic interpretation such as this, in which Jesus is clearly saying "*This is* my body, and *this is* my blood," and that they are "real food and real drink," and that His followers must "eat and drink" of them to have life in them, it is simply linguistically unreasonable for you to assert that the text does not even *point to* transubstantiation, but that somehow, at the same time, it does teach *your understanding* of the "Real Presence." You are simply begging the question, linguistically speaking, in terms of a straight-forward reading of the text.
As for St. Cyril's passages above, there is no contradiction between saying that the consecrated bread and wine are now only "apparent bread" and "apparent wine," and that that they are also "something spiritual." You are perceiving a contradiction where none exists. The Catholic Church teaches that after the consecration, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine. The Church also teaches that they are "something spiritual" which truly impart grace to the recipient.
As for my only providing a few passages from St.'s Irenaeus and Cyril on the Eucharist here, so as to demonstrate the the early Church taught transubstantiation, I will happy to provide many more passages from other early Church Fathers. However, given that you have denied that transubstantiation is even taught by Cyril, I'm honestly not sure as to *what* manner of explicitness, from any Church Father, on the subject would satisfy you.
Christopher Lake,
"You seem to feel the need to continually assert that John 6 does not even *point to* transubstantiation"
I dont understand why you think it does.
" it is simply linguistically unreasonable for you to assert that the text does not even *point to* transubstantiation, but that somehow, at the same time, it does teach *your understanding* of the 'Presence.'"
I suppose it would have been unreasonable for me to assert that. However, I didn't assert that. (the second part that is). What I said is that the it cannot be the case that the proposed metaphor works simply all the way through the extended discourse, since "come to my flesh and believe in my blood" if it's going to mean anything requires further explanation than just a description of the metaphor and no one has proposed an altermative to the idea that it must have something to do with Christ's words at the last Supper.
You gave us some argumentation which supported the Real Presence being referred to in the passage and labeled it (and are still doing this) as argumentátion that specifically supports (or "points to" as you prefer to say) one particular understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence (the one we call transubstantiation) being in there. Just labeling isn't good enough, though. You have to show how the discourse more plausibly "points to" transubstantiation than it "points to" other ways of understanding the Real Presence since your challenge is to show it pointing to a Roman Catholic distinctive rather than something that both Roman Catholics and Protestants believe.
We dont have to argue about whether you've already done that. Just assume I'm unobservant or forgetful and tell me again. What specifically in the text of the passage makes it more plausible that the passage is referring to the specific version of the Real Presence called "Transubstantiation" than some other version of the Real Presence? If you are able to answer that question it means I'm wrong and you have produced something that could be called an argument for a Roman Catholic distinctive.
SK,
If Jn.6:35 reveals the hermeneutic of the chapter, i.e to believe in Christ is to eat and drink, then coming to/believing in the Bread of Life vs.32-50 is not any more awkward than coming to/believing in Christ's flesh and blood vs.51-58.
IOW you objected to the latter and said the metaphor or figure of speech failed/did not work, when in fact it does.
CL,
In that you haven't even attempted to deal with the text specifically, no amount of quotes from the church fathers to obscure the discussion will satisfy anybody that's paying attention.
Jesus either said that coming to him satisfies one's hunger and believing him quenches one's thirst in Jn 6:35 or he did not.
Upon that hinges one's understanding or misunderstanding of the passage. IOW you need to rebut its plain meaning for your argument to have any credibility at all.
Of course, if you can't explain it away, the safest thing to do is to ignore it. Which is exactly what you are doing.
Thank you.
"there is no contradiction between saying that the consecrated bread and wine are now only "apparent bread" and "apparent wine,"...
As I said, "apparent" helps your case, since it spounds like the "appearances" in the theory of transubstantiation.
When I asked if Cyril was contradicting himself, I was talking about his saying "bread" rather than the "appearance of bread." In this case he seems not to be talking about transubstantiation.
RPV,
"If Jn.6:35 reveals the hermeneutic of the chapter, i.e to believe in Christ is to eat and drink, then coming to/believing in the Bread of Life vs.32-50 is not any more awkward than coming to/believing in Christ's flesh and blood vs.51-58."
Christ said he is the Bread of Life, so coming to and believing in the Bread of Life is coming to and Believing in Him.
Anyway, more awkward or not, it isn't the same thing. So According to your metaphor, applying your metaphor to the entire discourse, he's said there are two things that someone has to do in order to have eternal life: 1. Come to and believe in Him, and also 2. come to and believe in His Flesh and in His Bood.
What does it mean to come to and believe in Christ's Flesh and in His Blood, and what makes you so sure that it doesn't have something to do with His words at the Last Supper? When I said "doesn't work" I meant that with regards to the first use of the metaphor, merely defining the metaphor explains it: Christ said that in order to have eternal life, you must come to and believe in Him. With regards to the supposed second use of the metaphor, simply defining the metaphor yields something that, without further explanation, doesn't appear to mean anything: In order to have eternal life you must come to His flesh and believe in His blood.
RPV,
Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the words specifically say to hold to the traditions taught by the apostles, *whether* handed down by word of mouth *or* by letter. The most linguistically straight-forward reading of this verse is that in some cases, traditions were handed down orally by the apostles, and that, in other cases, traditions were handed down by letter by the apostles. Paul states that Christians are to hold to these traditions, whether they were passed down orally or by letter. The clear, logical follow-through from that statement would be to hold to all of the apostolic traditions, period, both those that were handed down by "word of mouth" and those that were handed down "by letter."
Consider this question. How would you be able to tell, as a Sola Scriptura-subscribing Protestant, if the church to which you belong *were not* holding to the apostolic traditions handed down by "word of mouth"?
On another note (yet related to this discussion), during the time in which I was preparing to reply to you in this comment, I happened to see this statement from you to "Nick" on another "Beggars All" thread:
"I am bold to say that anyone who believes the roman line has been given over and blinded to the truth as it is in Christ and in the Scripture."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/reformed-tiber-swimmers.html
With such a perspective as yours, expressed in the quote above, what is the likelihood that you will even take the time to *begin* to be give a fair chance to *any* distinctively Catholic teaching, no matter how how much Scripture I provide and exegete? In your view, by definition, I'm simply a deceived soul who can't even rightly understand the saving truths of Scripture-- right? Your seeming opinion of me and other Catholics does not exactly provide the best grounds upon which for me to hope to have a fair exegetical discussion of Scripture with you.
Steelikat,
I just saw your latest replies to me. I'll have to answer them sometime over the weekend or very early next week at the latest, Lord willing. I have a busy few days ahead. Thank you for your patience.
RPV,
Sorry for the typos in my latest reply to you. It's very late here, and I've had to pull an all-nighter. I hope that my reply is intelligible to you.
SK,
In that the ability to read means one can follow an argument, I am only going to say it once more.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
In Jn. 6:35 Christ says he is he bread of life, in whom, if the Jews believe they shall not hunger or thirst.
In Jn. 6:51 Jesus he is the living bread which is his flesh which he will give for the life of the world.
Connect the dots. A = believing, B = bread of life, C = flesh and blood.
Further and again, communion is only profitable if one first believes in Christ. It is not a converting ordinance, (likewise baptism), but rather the preaching of the word converts men. Which is exactly what Christ was doing in Jn.6. Preaching the necessity of faith in him under the figure of speech of eating the bread of life and his flesh and blood.
CL,
If as per 2 Thess. 2:15 the oral and written traditions are the same; there is no conflict among them, so too we know we are holding to the first, if we are holding to the second.
And we know that because of 2 Tim. 3:15 which tells us that Scripture is sufficient to judge all good works - hence the oral apostolic traditions are unneeded, if not that the NT is the inscripturation of those apostolic traditions.
Neither did that inscripturation happen over night, but in history during the apostolic age, so that for a time both the oral and the written existed along side each other as in 2 Thess, before the latter eventually superseded the former with the death of the apostles and the close of the canon.
And while typos are to be avoided if at all possible, what you really need to apologize for is your complaining.
Just as one does not ultimately argue - however much they complain - with Mormons, or even Muslims over the Book of Mormon or the Koran, but rather upon the basis of Scripture, which both nominally appeal to, so too, Rome. Scripture is the common ground, regardless that Rome's appeal to Scripture are largely drive by.
Another way to put it imperfectly is that both of us understand English. If you want to argue in French, I am not going to listen nor can I. Scripture is the level playing field and the rule is the best argument from Scripture wins.
Besides if Rome was really consistent, she wouldn't bother appealing to Matt. 16 or 2 Thess to justify her doctrines. But that's just it. Rome inconsistently appeals to Scripture and it is her undoing, in that the Word of God is everything the Roman church claims to be, but is not: infallible, perspicuous, sufficient and inspired.
RPV:
The metaphor you were originally talking about is "eating" = "believing in". You say that that this metaphor operates consistently through the entire discourse.
In addition to that metaphor, you now say that verse 51 and following has another metaphor, which you say you are deriving indirectly by means of the principle of logical equivalence, "Christ's flesh and blood" = "believing".
Two metaphors operating together is called a "mixed metaphor". Anyway, applying your mixed metaphor, then, verses 53-58 which say "eating Christ's flesh gains you eternal life" really are saying "believing in believing gains you eternal life."
What does "believing in believing" mean?
RPV
"...communion is only profitable if one first believes in Christ...."
That is undoubtedly true. 1 Corinthians 11 has some pretty sobering things to say about how communion can be unprofitable.
RPV
I think I essentially agree with you that John 6:35 tells us what the Bread of Life discourse is about, and also ties in to the miracle of the loaves and fish and tells us something important about one of the reasons that Christ performed that miracle. Indeed, John 6:35 is in a sense what the whole book is about, the Gospel of salvation through Faith.
What I don't think makes sense is your latching on to the metaphor "eating" = "believing" and saying that explains everything in the discourse, full stop. There has to be more to it than that. In fact, you have just admitted that there is more to it than that by adding three more explicit metaphors: "Christ" = "bread of life" and "flesh" = "bread of life" plus a metaphor that you have derived: "flesh and blood" = "belief"
And still, even after adding all those other explanatory metaphors the verse 51-58 passage still is unclear, it still needs explanation. So you started out by saying that your one metaphor interprets the whole discourse, then you were forced to admit that it's not just that one metaphor but that one in combination with three other metaphors. Does my insistance that it was clear that something was going on in the passage in addition to "eating=believing" seem less of a stretch to you now?
Yours is not the clearest and most obvious reading. It is a muddled unclear reading. You've already made it very complicated with your quadruple mixed metaphor. My original contention that it must be about Faith, surely, and also about something else, namely the Lord's Supper, is far clearer and less complicated than your idea.
Can we say troll?
Oh well. One more time.
Eating the bread of life, which is Christ or eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood is to believe in him.
peace and goodbye
RPV
Is that an inclusive "we?" If so, the answer is "no, that would be entirely inapropriate on our part."
RPV
I see your first metaphor ("Eating the bread of life, which is Christ is to believe in him") in the passage. Christ defines it in verses 30-35 when he tells the Jews who are demanding manna as a sign that he is the manna sent down from heaven and believing in him is the only manna they need.
However, I don't see your second metaphor ("eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood is to believe in him") in the passage. Are you sure you didn't just make it up? After verse 50, Christ's language changes to something more graphic, seemingly indicating a change to a related but different topic. Can you give us a good reason to think the more obvious reading is wrong?
RPV,
I find it interesting that, in your last reply to me, you did not address, at all, this fairly lengthy section of my last comment to you:
"On another note (yet related to this discussion), during the time in which I was preparing to reply to you in this comment, I happened to see this statement from you to "Nick" on another "Beggars All" thread:
'I am bold to say that anyone who believes the roman line has been given over and blinded to the truth as it is in Christ and in the Scripture.'
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/reformed-tiber-swimmers.html
With such a perspective as yours, expressed in the quote above, what is the likelihood that you will even take the time to *begin* to be give a fair chance to *any* distinctively Catholic teaching, no matter how how much Scripture I provide and exegete? In your view, by definition, I'm simply a deceived soul who can't even rightly understand the saving truths of Scripture-- right? Your seeming opinion of me and other Catholics does not exactly provide the best grounds upon which for me to hope to have a fair exegetical discussion of Scripture with you."
Until you actually address this dilemma (set out in the above excerpt from my last comment), rooted in your view of "Romanists" as deceived and damned, any further exchanges between us will only perpetuate the myth that you are taking anything that I write here into serious consideration.
Steelikat,
Some (not all) of your difficulty in seeing the Catholic view of the Eucharist in John 6 and in the early Church Fathers can be attributed to your reading of said sources from the perspective of "Sola Scriptura," and from outside of the 2,000-year-old apostolic tradition (which encompasses both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) of the Church.
This sort of reading largely began, in earnest, with Martin Luther and, ever since, it has produced confusion and disagreement (even among the original Reformers themselves!) on the nature of the Eucharist and on multitudes of other serious matters of doctrine and practice.
As one who used to read Scripture and the Church Fathers from such a perspective myself ("Sola Scriptura"), I am glad to be out of the confusion which almost necessarily results from it. That is not a cop-out on my part, in terms of interpreting Scripture-- it is a simple gladness of being liberated from the exegetical confusion and disagreement which existed among the Reformers themselves, which they were never able to resolve, which has not *been* resolved for 500 years now, and for which there is no end in sight (as long as there are still people who hold to "Sola Scriptura") other than the Second Coming of Our Lord.
Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure *what* combination of Biblical exegetical argument and argument from the early Church Fathers, taken together, would prove, to *your* personal satisfaction, the doctrine of transubstantiation. I have already admitted that John 6 can be plausibly understood to point to either the Catholic or the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. You seem to take issue, now, with my even saying that John 6 *points to* the Lutheran view-- though earlier comments of yours, in this thread, appeared to say that you *did* believe that John 6 points to the Lutheran view of the "Real Presence." Linguistically speaking, John 6:35-66 easily points to a "literal" interpretation of the Eucharist (whether one means, by that, the Catholic view *or* the Lutheran view). Read in a straight-forward manner, the verses simply do not support Calvin's and Zwingli's views, respectively, of the Eucharist.
For more on the early Church Fathers' view of the Eucharist, this link can serve as a start: http://www.churchfathers.org/category/sacraments/the-real-presence/
As long as you are holding to "Sola Scriptura" though, you can still dismiss any exegetical and historical evidence which does not agree with your interpretation of Scripture. I'm glad to not be in that place anymore. It all too easily leads to the unwitting affirmation of heresy, which one sincerely takes to be "orthodoxy," based upon one's interpretation of Scripture-- with even "historic church confessions" only being affirmed on the basis of their agreement with one's interpretation of Scripture.
"Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure *what* combination of Biblical exegetical argument and argument from the early Church Fathers, taken together, would prove, to *your* personal satisfaction, the doctrine of transubstantiation."
You shouldn't take such a task upon yourself. Either you misinterpreted something I said, or you you've simply forgotten what my comment was all about. You were endeavoring to answer RPV's challenge to find a Roman Catholic distinctive taught in the early church. You responded by pointing out several instances where the Real Presence, in GENERAL, seems to be taught, and one instance (Cyril) where something more specific, something like the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, SPECIFICALLY, may be taught.
I stepped in to try to help you by pointing out that evidence for the more GENERAL doctrine aren't really helping you--in order for you to meet the challenge you have to show Roman Catholic distinctives being taught (or pointed to or whatever you want to call it) That is all that has happened here and you really don't need to feel dutibound to prove Transubstantiation to me. I am not asking you to do anything like that, although I do appreciate your willingness to try to do it but really, it is not necessary.
I'm wondering if you understand what I mean by general vs. specific, and "distinctives" here. Let me try to say it in a different way.
OK, let's say that you find, in the bible, a verse that clearly says the bread and wine in the sacrament are truly the body and blood of Christ. In fact, I am sure you can do just that and I could help you, if you like. Will you thereby have answered RPV's challenge to find a Roman Catholic teaching? No, because that is not specifically a Roman Catholic teaching. It is a teaching that Catholics, Protestants (Lutherans, for sure, and I think others) and Eastern Orthodox all have in common.
In order to meet RPVs challenge, you have to find a Roman Catholic distinctive, the doctrine of Papal infallibility, for example, or the immaculate Conception. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic distinctive, but Transubstantiation is something much more SPECIFIC than just the idea that the bread and wine in the sacrament are truly the body and blood of Christ. Do you see what I mean?
Post a Comment