Eucharist Vs John 6

raymond,

Sorry, but that argument never entered my mind.

**sigh**

Evangelicals believe something "symbolic" (in regards to Christian faith) has meaning, and that His Spiritual Presence is just as "real" as His physically literal presence was. Jesus death and resurrection are proof of God's undying love and forgiveness for fallen man. He did die and was resurrected. He didn't say "I shall ascend to Heaven" and stay put, it all happened.

Uh . . . no.

 

Dear Lisa,

please allow me to digress a little. You seem to agree with me that symbols and figures do not have to be strictly imaginary. The symbols themselves can be real objects or events.

But then when you find Augustine using the word "figure" to describe a John 6 passage, you insist that he is denying the reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist. That doesn't follow unless you believe figures and symbols can only be imaginary.

What do you, as an AOG, believe the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is. When the pastor says "Take, eat...." What is your proper disposition towards the elements? Do you
a)pretend that they are Christ's Body and Blood?
b)Consume them as a devotion-filled meal, without thinking about Christ's Body and Blood?
c) other?

your brother

 

raymond,

Okay . . . but only if I can do the same.

Correct, and in the Eucharist the figure/symbol is not imaginary. The bread and wine are real and are representative of Spiritual Nourishment provided by Christ.

See, you seem to think that to be "real" something must be concrete or tangible. I believe that Christ's spiritual presence is every bit as real as His physical presence was.

Yes. As the bread and wine are real in the Eucharist. However, we know that they are not really representative of eating and drinking Christ's real flesh and blood, since nobody ever took a bite out of Christ or served Him up on a platter.

Then what exactly is Augustine saying in your mind?

No. Real vs. imaginary is not the least bit part of my argument. Spiritual nourishment is not imaginary, just like we can't see God, He's not imaginary--He exists. To you and me He exists because of our faith, however, there are people who don't believe in God who will argue that He is definitely a figment of our imaginations.

Your argument only applies if you insist that Jesus is really talking about eating something, a carnal eating. But what He is saying is way more than that. Read the other verses I've given where "words" are being eaten. It's a Spiritual consumption.

This is where I digress, in a post to Charles, I quoted Augustine from His Homilies.

How do you explain away Augustine saying, "Believe and thou has eaten already?

And how much more evangelical can you get than this:

OR

AND

All of these are portions of quotes I posted on page five (5) of this thread.

I believe we are to consume the Spirit, to be filled and refreshed spiritually. We are communing with Him spiritually. And as Augustine said, "He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them . . ."

Nope.

I think about His Spirit and His undying love exhibited in His coming to us in human form, and dying for us on the Cross. I meditate on Him and everything He is to me. I certainly do not imagine myself eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Other.

 

quote by raymond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you, as an AOG, believe the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is. When the pastor says "Take, eat...." What is your proper disposition towards the elements?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa:
I believe we are to consume the Spirit, to be filled and refreshed spiritually. We are communing with Him spiritually. And as Augustine said, "He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them . . ."


quote by raymond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you
a)pretend that they are Christ's Body and Blood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa: Nope.


quote by raymond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b)Consume them as a devotion-filled meal, without thinking about Christ's Body and Blood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa:
I think about His Spirit and His undying love exhibited in His coming to us in human form, and dying for us on the Cross. I meditate on Him and everything He is to me. I certainly do not imagine myself eating His flesh and drinking His blood.<<<<

Dear Lisa,

Then do you believe you are consuming a representation of his Body and Blood?
If the Eucharist is the time when we consume only Christ's Spirit, then why did He not say "Take, eat, this is my Spirit.....". If what you believe is true, then Our Lord's words "This is my Body" confused the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

None of your quotes by Augustine deny the reality of Christ's Physical Presence in the Eucharist. I could show you quotes from the Council of Trent about "figurative" and "symbolic" meanings of the Eucharist, on second thought I won't. You might try to convince me that Trent was against the Real Presence.

The problem with your scenario, of Augustine having an Assemblies of God Eucharist, is:
i) that he chose to belong to a Church which had already for several hundred years explicitly taught that Christ's Body and Blood were physically present in the Eucharist.
ii)This Church continued teaching that doctrine, without any controversy for hundreds of years after Augustine.
iii)This Church pored over Augustine's works, the same ones you champion, and declared him to be a Doctor of the Church.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church of the 4th and 5th Cty, thought this defining doctrine, and center of its worship, was a matter of indifference?

Do you think Augustine was unaware of the doctrine of the Real Presence, or was dissenting from it? How come nobody realized it at the time?


raymond

 

raymond,

I'm going to digress again and go back over some of your points.

The Eucharist is a figure/symbol of the Spiritual nourishment provided to us by Christ.

I don't follow your logic here. If the Eucharist is really Christ, then it would not be a figure. Is it your belief that the bread and wine are Christ's flesh and blood? Or do you see the bread and wine as figures, just as Augustine did? Also, are you asserting that Jesus was merely a symbol of God's undying love for us?

Let me ask you what you suppose Augustine meant when he warned, ". . . we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally?"

Augustine specifically said, "'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice, it is therefore a FIGURE, ENJOINING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A SHARE IN THE SUFFERINGS OF OUR LORD, AND THAT WE SHOULD RETAIN A SWEET AND PROFITABLE MEMORY OF THE FACT THAT HIS FLESH WAS WOUNDED AND CRUCIFIED FO US."

Not only does he specifically tell us that this verse is a figurative expression, he goes on to tell us what this expression enjoins us to do. And eating the real flesh of Christ is not what Augustine says.

I've also wondered how the prophesied "unbloody sacrifice" could be identified as a rather bloody sacrifice.

Then, please tell me what you believe Augustine meant when he said, "This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. TO WHAT PURPOSE DOST THOU MAKE READY TEETH AND STOMACH? BELIEVE AND THOU HAST EATEN ALREADY."

Then,

"For to believe on Him IS TO EAT THE LIVING BREAD. HE THAT BELIEVES, EATS.

"certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does he dispense his body; certainly, then, at least, you will understand that HIS GRACE IS NOT CONSUMED BY TOOTH BITING.

Would you kindly take a moment and respond to my questions, instead of outright dismissing them without explanation?

I'll move on to your most recent post now.

 

raymond,

No.

I never said we consume His Spirit. I said the Eucharist is SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT. If you would but read the verses I quoted from Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Revelation you would see where the command to eat "words" and "scrolls" is given. What do you believe the true message of these passages is? Is someone really eating words and scrolls? We are to absorb what He teaches us, consume it, take it in and feed on it--Spiritually.

By the same token,if He means that the Bread is Him entirely, why didn't He say, "Take eat this is me?" or "Take eat, this is my body, flesh, and spirit?"

Clearly there was some differing beliefs on the Eucharist, not necessarily confusion. This is clearly evident when reading what the early fathers wrote and taught.

Yes they do. Please explain how you can say this.

Please do.

Hmmm? Afraid I might just do that?

Uh, please show me where I said Augustine had an AoG Eucharist.

Wrong. Augustine was not the first father to assert that the Eucharist was symbolic. I will give you some quotes by fathers preceeding Augustine.

Wrong. There were also fathers who came after Augustine who taught the Eucharist was symbolic. I will post some of these also.

You juuuusst can't fathom your church making such a HUUUGE booboo, can ya? Sorry, but it did.

Not necessarily. What does that have to do with anything?

No. He may not have been aware to how far the doctrine would eventually develop, but he obviously knew there were those who were wrongly interpreting this figurative expression, that's why he gave the warning.

No. He was teaching it correctly. It was the others who veered off course.

How do you know that nobody realized it?

 

Quotes from fathers preceeding Augustine:

Justin Martyr (100/110-165 A.D.)

It is quite evident tha this prophecy also alludes to the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood. (Dialogue with Trypho 70)

Cyprian (200/210-258 A.D.)

But when the blood of grapes is mentioned what else is shewn than the wine of the Cup of the Blood of the Lord? . . . I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ . . . For that waters signify peoples, Holy Scripture declares in the Revelations, saying, The waters which thou sawest, on which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. This too we perceive is is contained in the Mystery of the Cup. For because Christ loves us all in that He bore our sins also, we see that in the water the people are intended, but that in the wine is shewn the Blood of Christ. Butn in the Cup water is mingled with win, His people are united to Christ, and the multitude of believers are united and conjoined with Him in Whom they believe. (Epistle 63)

Eusebius (263-340 A.D.)

For by means of the wine, which was the symbol . . . of His blood, He cleanses from their former sins those who are baptised into His death and have believed on His blood, "Take, drink, this is My blood which is poured out for you for the remission of sins; do this for My memorial;" and that the words "His teeth whiter than milk" signify the birghtness and purity of the mystic food. For again He gave to His disciples the symbols . . . of the divine dispensaiton, bidding them make the image . . . of His own body. (Demonstratio Evangelica VIII)

Athanasius (295-375 A.D.)

Here also He has used both terms about Himself, namely flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what relates to the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him but also in what was invisible, and might thereby learn that what He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him. For, He says, what I have spoken unto you is spirit and life, as much as to say, That which is manifested, and is given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this and its blood shall be given to you by Me spiritually as food, so that this may be imparted . . . spiritually to each one, and may become to all a preservative for resurrection to eternal life. (Festal Epistles VI.19)

 

Here's Clement of Alexandria's take on the Eucharist from The Stromata:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-53.htm#P3706_1120269

But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. "It beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things. Love never faileth."9 "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."10 But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which faileth not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. And do you imagine that I am thinking of a supper that is to be done away with? "For if," it is said, "I bestow all my goods, and have not love, I am nothing."11 On this love alone depend the law and the Word; and if "thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour," this is the celestial festival in the heavens. But the earthly is called a supper, as has been shown from Scripture. For the supper is made for love, but the supper is not love (agape); only a proof of mutual and reciprocal kindly feeling. "Let not, then, your good be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," says the apostle, in order that the meal spoken of may not be conceived as ephemeral, "but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."12 He who eats of this meal, the best of all, shall possess the kingdom of God, fixing his regards here on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly Church. Love, then, is something pure and worthy of God, and its work is communication. "And the care of discipline is love," as Wisdom says; "and love is the keeping of the law."13 And these joys have an inspiration of love from the public nutriment, which accustoms to everlasting dainties. Love (agape), then, is not a supper.

It is an admirable thing, therefore, to raise our eyes aloft to what is true, to depend on that divine food above, and to satiate ourselves with the exhaustless contemplation of that which truly exists, and so taste of the only sure and pure delight. For such is the agape, which, the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of.

He gave life to the watery element of the meaning of the law, filling with His blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world; supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of the old law and of the new word, in order to the fulfilment of the predestined time. The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood;7

In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"-the blood of the vine.79 He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"-the holy stream of gladness.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-57.htm#P4831_1447881

. . . "Labour," says the Lord, "not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth to everlasting life."14 And nutriment is received both by bread and by words.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm#P3288_976824

But if human wisdom, as it remains to understand, is the glorying in knowledge, hear the law of Scripture: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord."86 But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, "I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for ye are not yet able," regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; "87 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,-of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed. If, then, some would oppose, saying that by milk is meant the first lesson"-as it were, the first food-and that by meat is meant those spiritual cognitions to which they attain by raising themselves to knowledge, let them understand that, in saying that meat is solid food, and the flesh and blood of Jesus, . . .

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes-the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food-that is, the Lord Jesus-that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. The nutriment is the milk of the Father, by which alone we infants are nourished. The Word Himself, then, the beloved One, and our nourisher, hath shed His own blood for us, to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, "the care-soothing breast" of the Father. And He alone, as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those only are truly Messed who suck this breast. Wherefore also Peter says: "Laying therefore aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisy, and envy, and evil speaking, as new-born babes, desire the milk of the word, that ye may grow by it to salvation; if ye have tasted that the Lord is Christ."90 And were one to concede to them that the meat was something different from the milk, then how shall they avoid being transfixed on their own spit, through want of consideration of nature?91 For in winter, when the air is condensed, and prevents the escape of the heat enclosed within, the food, transmuted and digested and changed into blood, passes into the veins, and these, in the absence of exhalation, are greatly distended, and exhibit strong pulsations; consequently also nurses are then fullest of milk. And we have shown a little above, that on pregnancy blood passes into milk by a change which does not affect its substance, just as in old people yellow hair changes to grey. But again in summer, the body, having its pores more open, affords greater facility for diaphoretic action in the case of the food, and the milk is least abundant, since neither is the blood full, nor is the whole nutriment retained. If, then, the digestion of the food results in the production of blood, and the blood becomes milk, then blood is a preparation for milk, as blood is for a human being, and the grape for the vine. With milk, then, the Lord's nutriment, we are nursed directly we are born; and as soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest, even the Jerusalem above, in which it is written that milk and honey fall in showers, receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. "For meats are done away with,"92 as the apostle himself says; but this nourishment on milk leads to the heavens, rearing up citizens of heaven, and members of the angelic choirs. And since the Word is the gushing fountain of life, and has been called a river of olive oil, Paul, using appropriate figurative language, and calling Him milk, adds: "I have given you to drink; "93 for we drink in the word, the nutriment of the truth. . . . "I," says the Lord, "have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me."94 You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically "a cup,"95 when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father's will was food; and to us infants,who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father's breasts of love supply milk.

Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. "For Moses," He says, "gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."96 Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, in as much as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, "And the bread which I will give is My flesh," and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? "Who washes," it is said, "His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape."97 In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

 

In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ's Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes in Early Christian Doctrines:

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood. (p. 440)

"From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist ... Ignatius roundly declares that ... the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body ... Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity. (p. 197–198)

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally." (p. 211–212)

I also suggest surveying "History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources" by Dave Armstrong at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ459.HTM -

"I have been challenged both as to the history of eucharistic doctrine prior to 1517. Therefore, I will cite no less than eight reputable Protestant scholarly sources to back up my contention that there was virtual unanimity of belief in the Real Presence all through that period (note again, I say nothing of transubstantiation, which is the more narrow, particular belief - this has been my argument all along)".

D. Armstrong goes on to quote Otto W. Heick, Williston Walker, Philip Schaff, D. Douglas, F.L. Cross, E.A. Livingstone, Jaroslav Pelikan, J.N.D. Kelly, Carl Volz, Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar.

 

The Church has always taught that the Eucharist is deeply symbolic. It seems to me that the false dichotomy of the via moderna - the either/or nominalist presupposition that distinguishes in order to separate - is at work in the above arguments that if Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine lose their symbolism. This false separation was unknown to the Fathers who lived in the mindset of the via antiqua, which distinguished in order to unite.

 

Carson -

Good to see you back. Hope things are going well for you.

So, what you are now implying is that the church teaches that the bread/wine is literally a symbol?

I am not so sure that is the implication. The above quotes point to symbolic rather than literal understanding of communion. Though, that is all how one intereprets words they read on a page (which, as I will always harp upon, shows how EVERY christian will always land in the same situation and become an individual interpreter of what to do in a situation....no matter what the church to which they belong says).

That is a presupposition on your part, one which you must prove. The impossibility of that proof leaves open the option that the above statements reflect a purely symbolic representation rather than a litural understanding. Though, that leaves us back at square one; neither being able to show the other is wrong, though both claiming to understand perfectly the meaning of the passage.

Such is the dance we have danced many times.

In Christ,
jason

 

So, what you are now implying is that the church teaches that the bread/wine is literally a symbol?

Yes, the accidents of bread and wine are really and truly symbols. In no way is this mutually exclusive of the dogma of transubstantiation.

The above quotes point to symbolic rather than literal understanding of communion.

And I would say that this is unnecessary - that in your plight to derail the consistent belief of the Chrisitian people, you make a false assumption.

Though, that is all how one intereprets words they read on a page

Which causes us to cry out for a teacher, a Magisterium, with the authority of Christ Himself.

 

1. I was teasing you by saying "literally symbolic". It is called sarcasm. Sigh.

2. You can call something 'real' and you can call something a 'symbol', but you cannot call something real and symbolic in regards to the same thing.

EX. A is really B. A is symbolic of B
By the very meaning of 'really' and 'symbolic', these two statements cannot coexist.

How about this one:

Red is really Power. Red is a symbol of Power (Notice how the 'real' doesn't work)
Money is really security. Money is a symbol of security (Notice how the symbol doesn't work)

They do not work together.

Now, of course you can use 'real' and 'symbol' together if you are talking about one object with two different meanings.

Red is really a color which symbolizes power
Money is really security, which is symbolized by credit card

So, I will agree with you that if you mean that you are talking about two different things you can say what you said. Otherwise, you are wrong.

What was my assumption? You fail to show where, in my grand conquest to undermine thousands of years of supposed belief in a brief flurry of words, that I made a false assumption.

We have been over this. You fail, quite painfully, to realize the simple fact that interpretation is a necessity of belief unless we are one with the truth. The bible, the church, the magisterium or the pope all require one to interpret their teachings to individual situations within ones life and experience. This is self evident as no single teaching authority can cover all possible situations one might encounter in life; interpretation is a necessity. If you fail to realize this, your show your ignorance or illogical nature.

Think about this and get back to me. I would like to discuss it with you. You have my IM, so we can do it there as well.

In Christ,
jason

 

jason,

Thank you!

 

2. You can call something 'real' and you can call something a 'symbol', but you cannot call something real and symbolic in regards to the same thing.

Says who?

The Euchrist is both symbol and reality. It points to what it is. It points to what it effects.

A is really B. A is symbolic of B
By the very meaning of 'really' and 'symbolic', these two statements cannot coexist.

Except for in the case of the Eucharist, when the sign signifies the reality, which lies behind the sign. This such a case when A is really B while A signifies B. You are assuming that this proposition cannot be so, and in doing so, you prostrate the gift of faith to the throne of rationalism.

Saint Augustine effectively echoes this reality, when he writes, "You are the body of Christ and individually members of it ... If you are his body and members of him, then you will find set on the Lord's table your own mystery. Yes, you receive your own mystery ... Christ the Lord... hallowed at his table the mystery of our peace and unity. Whoever receives the mystery of unity without preserving the bonds of peace receives not a mystery for his benefit but evidence against himself" (Sermon 272).

We confess transubstantiation, not transformation. The form of bread and wine remain, while the substance of bread and wine do not. In conclusion, the Eucharist is a two-fold reality; the reality of the signum points to, whereas the reality of the signified is the reality signified.

You fail, quite painfully, to realize the simple fact that interpretation is a necessity of belief unless we are one with the truth.

How can I fail to realize this truth when I recognize the truth openly? We are in need of an interpreter, a voice, an ecclesia dei, a mater and magister.

The bible, the church, the magisterium or the pope all require one to interpret their teachings to individual situations within ones life and experience.

Are you refering to an infinite regress of self-interpretation or to hermeneutical application, which is the practical effects of doctrinal teaching?

When it comes to the Eucharist, we need a voice to say, "This is the apostolic faith." "This is what the deposit of divine revelation entails and consists of." Without such a voice, you are left with your own voice, which is not that voice - and you are, in essence, a Protestant.

[ April 21, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

With the exception of J.N.D. Kelly, I have heard on none of these guys. Hmmmmmmmm . . . .

 

Jason,

Carson said, "...the accidents of bread and wine are really and truly symbols."

"Accidents" is the key to understand what he is saying.

The "accidents" of the bread and wine are symbols.

The transubstanciated bread and wine are not symbols, but rather they are the "real" Body and Blood of our Lord.


In that case then, the Eucharist is both real and symbolic at the same time.

Ron

 

If Ron can "get it", can't you Jason?

 

Carson,

Lets stop this game. You must plainly see how the position to which you have succumbed is illogical, yet you persist.

I have misunderstood your implication, so I will correct my reasoning here. At least one of us can act like an adult.

The Eucharist can be both symbolic and literal, you are correct, but the bread and wine cannot. Why is this? Because the Eucharist is a concept, not an actual 'thing'. For clarification, the idea of "good" can have many literal meanings as well as many figurative adaptations because it is a illusive concept. Even if the concept of "good" was concrete, it could be determined to be both literal (a good action) and figurative (a good action points to a good heart).

Though, a physical "thing" has attributes.

Now, if you say the 'accidents' of the bread and wine are both, you would be wrong. Though, you did not say that. Good.

If you say the bread and wine itself can be both, you would be wrong. I am pretty sure you didn't say that, though you may equivocate later and indeed say this. Who knows.

You can only be correct in saying the abstract concept of 'Eucarist' can exihbit both.

If I read this correctly, you are correct. If 'Eucharist' stands for the whole concept.

Absolutely not! To imply so shows how little you 1.) know of me 2.) realize the need for consistent and rational thought to be a part of our spiritual life, and 3.) understand logical debate.

I am afraid you confuse logic with skeptism. I am no skeptic, rather, I am an exceedingly logical person. Christ reached me through logic and it is through logic that I have been able to reach many athiests and others.

http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/reasons_to_study_logic.htm

Logical argument has nothing to do with lack of faith.

Again, if I read this correctly, you are right. As long as you mean concept, not physical.

Carson, I pointed this out already.

Need I state it again?

What you are doing is substiting one medium in need of interpretation with another medium in need of interpretation. Just as the bible cannot possibly elaborate upon every situation a believer will encounter in life, neither can the pope, the church or any collection of bishops. Even with those substitutions, you will still need to interpret the teachings. This is the circle in which you are caught.

You claim to openly embrace the idea, yet you know now what you say.

Here is an example:

CHRIS: Technical Architect from France. He speaks only French. Intimate knowledge of Java.
JASON: Technical Architect from USA. He speaks only English. Intimate knowledge of Java.
HELEN: Technical Architect from France. Speaks both English and French. Intimate knowledge of Java.

Chris and Jason need to communicate a rather technical detail. Helen must be interpreter between the two. Chris tells Helen to tell Jason to do A. Helen tells Jason to do A.

Helen is now the interpreter for Chris and Jason.

So, using your view of this, we are done. Helen has effectively interepreted between Chris and Jason.

The reality is that Jason must now go and look at the systems and decide what to do with that system based upon his understanding of the interpetation of Chris's command given through Helen. Effectively, Jason must now interpret Helen's interpretation.

It is that simple. Just as Jason must interpret the interpretation, Christians, no matter the situation, are in constant need of self interpretation. You do this on a dialy basis. If you realize it not, you do.

Actually, both. You do both on a daily basis.

Even with such a voice, you still must come to the realization of what the teaching means. Even if the meaning is highlighted, bolded and listed, you as the christian seeking to understand it must find the meaning. Again, in Essence, you interpret the interpretation.

In Christ,
jason

 

Thanks, Ron. That helped. I addressed this to Carson above.

Again, thanks.

Jason