Eucharist Vs John 6

[raymond]

quote from Augustine:imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . .(part omited by Webster follows )>>>So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not(end of omission)
.....That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if What is taken in the Sacrament...


Dear Lisa,
The whole point of Webster's quotes is to prove that Christ did not give us of His Body and Blood, so it is not surprising to me that Webster needed to remove the words:
"So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment" to make his point.

by the way, when was the last time you heard an Assemblies of God Pastor say that Christ gives us His Body and Blood as a healthful refreshment?
or something to that effect? The last time he or she referred to the Lord's Supper as a Sacrifice?

Don't you think like this sounds like the language of the Catholic Church?

raymond

 

[LisaMC]

raymond,

So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness.

That's only an argument if you insist that Augustine is referring to eating real flesh and blood. This sentence does not rule out the figurative use.

Notice: So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood . . . .

That's not the same as saying: He both gave us His Body and Blood.

How do you justly disregard: This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; IT IS THEREFORE A FIGURE. . .that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

 

[LisaMC]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-20.htm#P3157_1389528

4. Let us come to the fourth work and its reward, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after ighteousness they shall be filled." Dost thou desire to be filled? Whereby? If the flesh long for fulness, after digestion thou wilt suffer hunger again. So He saith, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again."9 If the remedy which is applied to a wound heal it, there is no more pain; but that which is applied against hunger, food that is, is so applied as to give relief only for a little while. For when the fulness is past, hunger returns. This remedy of fulness is applied day by day, yet the wound of weakness is not healed. Let us therefore "hunger and thirst after righteousness, that we may be filled" with that righteousness after which we now hunger and thirst. For filled we shall be with that for which we hunger and thirst. Let our inner man then hunger and thirst, for it hath its own proper meat and drink. "I," saith He, "am the Bread which came down from heaven."10 Here is the bread of the hungry; long also for the drink of the thirsty, "For with Thee is the well of life."11 )

 

[BobRyan]

Webster? Augustine?

Why not quote and study - what John wrote?

Is he not "church father" enough? Is his writing not simple enough to read? Are the words that we find in John soooo confusing that someone else must read them to us?

OK for those who do find the words of John too difficult to read - lets go ask Billy Graham to read them to us.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Charles33]

Sorry I got so busy everybody. Assinged a new project April 2, and have been srtapped with real work.

I will try to eventually get some reponses, but they will not be as quick as I was getting before.

Bible Belted - Whatever. According to you, Catholics take John 6 symbolically? Do you believe that?

LisaMC said

You are aware that only a select few of the early fathers were given that
title. I can also present you with evidence showing that Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Eusebius,
Cyprian, Chrysostom held spiritual (figurative) beliefs in the Eucharist.

Frankly, no I was not aware. We will have to visit this in detail as time permits. Please present your eveidence. Also, I have the full works, so to keep things in context, please list the reference so I can read these things in context to the conversation being discussed. I know people interpret these things like the Bible to suit particular needs from time to time. But the good news, is that we also in addition to non-inspired patristic texts, have more evidence, not just a possible interpretation. In other words, a course of action.

Sorry I have not been able to get to everything at this point. I just checked, and although I have not read through all those posts, it looks like there is a LOT there to try and cover.

 

[Charles33]

Ok - sorry about that - do you prefer "SYMBOLIC FLESH is worthless - nothing - useless BUT RATHER MY WORDS are
SPIRIT and are LIFE".

Is that "better"??

Are you ready to entertain exegesis?

Bob, I have been. You are the one adding your spin and bolding to the Scriptures with techiques like that. Your whole attitude is denegrating as the tread flows on. Check out LisaMC, steady as she goes. Nice to converse with and she keeps the emotional garp to a minimum. I am actually motivated to some degree of consentual interest to answer her as a respectful individual.

Regarding the leaven. You can see it how you like, and I see your point, but the 'leaven' is what the Bible says was equated to the teaching. Those are the words used specificlally, and I believe what it says.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 16:11 "HOW is it you did NOT UNDERSTAND that I was NOT speaking to you about Bread"?

Hmmm - "bread" you say??

Yes - "bread".

So they DID think He was speaking to them about BREAD but in fact...

vs 12 it was "The TEACHING of the Pharisees".

The "effort" to get "leaven" to eliminate the idea that they DID consider him to be speaking about BREAD - just does not work WHEN you consider exegesis - ALL the details of the text.

John 6 shows us the SAME problem with the MANNA that comes down from Heaven being Christ's body and the LESSON of Manna ALREADY established to be "spiritually" "MAN does not live by BREAD ALONE but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of GOD". Deut 8:4

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LisaMC]

Charles,

Have you read Augustine's Homolies on the Gospel of John? Here are some quotes from those tractates:

Tractate XXV.

Tractate XXV.
John VI. 15-44.

10. After the sacrament of the miracle, He introduces discourse, that, if possible, they who have been fed may be further fed, that lie may with discourse fill their minds, whose bellies He filled with the loaves, provided they take in. And if they do not, let that be taken up which they do not receive, that the fragments may not be lost. Wherefore let Him speak, and let us hear. "Jesus answered and said Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye have eaten of my loaves." Ye seek me for the sake of the flesh not for the sake of the spirit. How many seek Jesus for no other object but that He may bestow on them a temporal benefit! One has a business on hand, he seeks the intercession of the clergy; another is oppressed by one more powerful than himself, he flies to the church. Another desires intervention in his behalf with one with whom he has little influence. One in this way, one in that, the church is daily filled with such people. Jesus is scarcely sought after for Jesus' sake. "Ye seek me, not because ye have seen the signs, but because ye have eaten of my loaves. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." Ye seek me for something else, seek me for my own sake. For He insinuates the truth, that Himself is that meat: this shines out clearly in the sequel. "Which the Son of man will give you." Thou didst expect, I believe, again to eat bread, again to sit down, again to be gorged. But He had said, "Not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life," in the same manner as it was said to that Samaritan woman: "If thou knewest who it is that asketh of thee drink, thou wouldest perhaps have asked of Him, and He would give thee living water." When she said, "Whence hast thou, since thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep?" He answered the Samaritan woman: "If thou knewest who it is that asketh of thee drink, thou wouldst have asked of Him, and He would give thee water, whereof whoso drinketh shall thirst no more; for whoso drinketh of this water shall thirst again." And she was glad and would receive, as if no more to suffer thirst of body, being wearied with the labor of drawing water. And so, during a conversation of this kind, He comes to spiritual drink. Entirely in this manner also here.

12. "They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" For He had said to them, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." "What shall we do?" they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent." 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. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, "that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:"13 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; "for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."14 For that reason, He willeth not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that worketh by love.15 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent;" so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe. See if the Jews do not ask for signs. "They said therefore rate Him, What sign doest thou, that we may see and believe thee? what dost thou work?" Was it a trifle that they were fed with five loaves? They knew this indeed, but they preferred manna from heaven to this food. But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of Himself that He gave, "not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth to eternal life." Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children, health of body, and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perisheth; the latter promised, "not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life." They gave attention to Him that promised the more, but just as if they did not yet see Him do greater things. They considered therefore what sort of works Moses had done, and they wished yet some greater works to be done by Him who promised them such great things. What, say they, doest thou, that we may believe thee? And that thou mayest know that they compared those former miracles with this and so judged these miracles which Jesus did as being less; "Our fathers," say they, "did eat manna in the wilderness." But what is manna? Perhaps ye despise it. "As it is written, He gave them manna to eat." By Moses our fathers received bread from heaven, and Moses did not say to them, "Labor for the meat which perisheth not." Thou promisest "meat which perisheth not, but which endureth to eternal life;" and yet thou workest not such works as Moses did. He gave, not barley loaves, but manna from heaven.

14. "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." "He that cometh to me;" this is the same thing as "He that believeth on me;" and "shall never hunger" is to be understood to mean the same thing as "shall never thirst." For by both is signified that eternal sufficiency in which there is no want. You desire bread from heaven; you have it before you, and yet you do not eat. "But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and ye believed not." But I have not on that account lost my people. "For hath your unbelief made the faith of God of none effect?"16 For, see thou what follows: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out of doors." What kind of within is that, whence there is no going out of doors? Noble interior, sweet retreat! O secret dwelling without weariness, without the bitterness of evil thoughts, without the solicitings of temptations and the interruptions of griefs! Is it not that secret dwelling whither shall enter that well-deserving servant, to whom the Lord will say, "Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord?"17

 

[LisaMC]

Tractate XXVI.
John VI. 41-59.

1. When our Lord Jesus Christ, as we have heard in the Gospel when it was read, had said that He was Himself the bread which came down from heaven, the Jews murmured and said, "Is not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" These Jews were far off from the bread of heaven, and knew not how to hunger after it. They had the jaws of their heart languid; with open ears they were deaf, they saw and stood blind. This bread, indeed, requires the hunger of the inner man: and hence He saith in another place, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."1 But the Apostle Paul says that Christ is for us righteousness.2 And, consequently, he that hungers after this bread, hungers after righteousness,-that righteousness however which cometh down from heaven, the righteousness that God gives, not that which man works for himself. For if man were not making a righteousness for himself, the same apostle would not have said of the Jews: "For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, they are not subject to the righteousness of God."3 Of such were these who understood not the bread that cometh down from heaven; because being satisfied with their own righteousness, they hungered not after the righteousness of God. What is this, God's righteousness and man's righteousness? God's righteousness here means, not that wherein God is righteous, but that which God bestows on man, that man may be righteous through God. But again, what was the righteousness of those Jews? A righteousness wrought of their own strength on which they presumed, and so declared themselves as if they were fulfillers of the law by their own virtue. But no man fulfills the law but he whom grace assists, that is, whom the bread that cometh down from heaven assists. "For the fulfilling of the law," as the apostle says in brief, "is charity."4 Charity, that is, love, not of money, but of God; love, not of earth nor of heaven, but of Him who made Heaven and earth. Whence can man have that love? Let us hear the same: "The love of God," saith he, "is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us."5 Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

11. "I am," saith He, "the bread of life." And what was the source of their pride? "Your fathers," saith He, "did eat manha in the wilderness, and are dead." What is it whereof ye are proud? "They ate manna, and are dead." Why they ate and are dead? Because they believed that which they saw; what they saw not, they did not understand. Therefore were they "your" fathers, because you are like them. For so far, my brethren, as relates to this visible corporeal death, do not we too die who eat the bread that cometh down from heaven? They died just as we shall die, so far, as I said, as relates to the visible and carnal death of this body. But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle saith, "Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself."16 For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar. Though your sins are daily, at least let them not be deadly. Before ye approach the altar, consider well what ye are to say: "Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors."17

 

[LisaMC]

Tractate XXVII.

Tractate XXVII.
John VI. 60-72.

1. We have just heard out of the Gospel the words of the Lord which follow the former discourse. From these a discourse is due to your ears and minds, and it is not unseasonable to-day; for it is concerning the body of the Lord which He said that He gave to be eaten for eternal life. And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted.This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, "To be carnally-minded is death."1 The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally. As in these words that follow:

3. "But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,"-for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,-answered and said, "This offends you;" because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. "Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?" What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: "When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;" 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.

6. Hence "the words," saith He, "which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life." For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: "The love of God," saith he, "is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us."5 Therefore "it is the Spirit that quickeneth," for it is the Spirit that makes living members. Nor does the Spirit make any members to be living except such as it finds in the body, which also the Spirit itself quickens. For the Spirit which is in thee, O man, by which it consists that thou art a man, does it quicken a member which it finds separated from thy flesh? I call thy soul thy spirit. Thy soul quickeneth only the members which are in thy flesh; if thou takest one away, it is no longer quickened by thy soul, because it is not joined to the unity of thy body. These things are said to make us love unity and fear separation. For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ's body. For if he is separated from Christ's body, he is not a member of Christ; if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. "But if any man," saith the apostle, "have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."6 "It is the Spirit," then, "that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What means "are spirit and life"? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? "They are spirit and life." Hast thou understood carnally? So also "are they spirit and life," but are not so to thee.

11. All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;-and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that 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; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense; and that, while these were offended and perished, the Lord was present for the consolation of the disciples who remained, for proving whom He asked, "Will ye also go away?" that the reply of their steadfastness might be known to us, for He knew that they remained with Him;-let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord's body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments. For at present Christ's body is as it were mixed on the threshing-floor: "But the Lord knoweth them that are His."13 If thou knowest what thou threshest, that the substance is there hidden, that the threshing has not consumed what the winnowing has purged; certain are we, brethren, that all of us who are in the Lord's body, and abide in Him, that He also may abide in us, have of necessity to live among evil men in this world even unto the end. I do not say among those evil men who blaspheme Christ; for there are now few found who blaspheme with the tongue, but many who do so by their life. Among those, then, we must necessarily live even unto the end.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Charles33:
[QB] Bible Belted - Whatever. According to you, Catholics take John 6 symbolically? Do you believe that?

I believe that since a truly literal understanding would involve eating Jesus' pysical body which is present in a physical mode, as opposed to a sacramental mode as per RCC teaching, that the RCC does not take John 6 literally in the same sense that those who went away from Jesus did. Hence the equivocation, and the reason your argument is invalid.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics never express surprise that the loyal disciples did not take a bite out of Christs arm in John 6 - clearly they don't "really" take the John 6 statements of Christ "literally" as much as their doctrine "needs them to".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

You seem to be fixated on Catholics rather than Catholicism.

Just a heads up.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Glen Seeker]

It just seems to me that when Peter said,"To whom should we go lord? You have the words of eternal life." (or something like that) He was in effect saying, "O.K. I don't understand this thing but I will continue to follow you because I trust you to make it clear to us at the right time."

After all, Peter and the others had seen the miracles and heard the teachings. How could they abandon the one they believed in just because they didn't understand this teaching?

A year later, they're at a Passover meal and Jesus pronounces the blessing over the bread and then says, "Take this and eat. This is my body."

At that moment, this man, Jesus, who had the words of life, who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, who cured the sick, who healed the blind, crippled, and leprous, who even raised the dead back to life, now gave them his body to eat and his blood to drink under the forms of bread and wine.

At that moment, they thought, "NO, Jesus, you mean this bread symbolizes your body and the wine symbolizes your blood."

I think Not.

I think they took him at face value and believed he meant what he said.

And that is what they taught to those who came after them. Maybe that is why the Christians were seen as cannibals by the Romans. They ate and drank the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.

A practice still found today in the RCC, the OC, the Anglican Church, and the Lutheran church.

That's how I see it. You're welcome to share my opinion.

Aloha and God Bless

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Glen, in that last post you neglected the fact that Jesus giving his literal body and blood to the disciples to eat would have made him the minister of sin. Under the Law of Moses (which was still in effect until Christ nailed it to the cross) it was sin to consume blood. Would Jesus make the disciples sin? I think not! Would Jesus Himself sin? Certainly not! Furthemore, you neglect that the same prohibition against consuming blood is in effect under the New Testament. Remember, in the Jerusalem Council, James decreed that a letter should be written to the gentile churches telling them to (1) abstain from idols (2) abstain from blood and things strangled (3) abstain from fornication -- Thus, we see that the prohibition against consuming blood was extended into the New Testament. Jesus is not the minister of sin. He is God, who, James says, neither is tempted nor tempts any man. Why then do men sin? They are drawn away of their own lusts and enticed! Why would ANY man brake the prohibition against consuming blood? Not because Jesus told him to, for Jesus tempts no one with sin. Why then would a man consume blood? Because he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed!

Furthermore, the Jews had eaten the Passover for centuries, eating the 3 unleavened loaves without knowing what they represented, but when Jesus took that second loaf and said "this is My body" it all came together -- they finally knew what it had represented all along. Ask a few Jews today what they represent and you will get varied answers: the 3 patriarchs or 3 of the prophets. However, we know that it was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for it was of the second loaf that Jesus said "this is My body" showing that it had represented him all along - and thus that the first had represented the Father all along and the third the Holy Spirit all along. Why else would this afikomen (which is what the Jews call this second loaf) be broken and hidden to be resurrected and eaten in a Jewish feast? Even prior to Christ's incarnation, they were showing forth his resurrection by this second loaf which he declared to be his body. Had it been his literal body the whole time or had it represented his literal body the whole time? Had the Jews been consuming Christ or consuming a piece of bread that pointed to Christ? The answer is obvious to any right-thinking person.

From a Jewish website:

Afikomen

The broken half of the middle matza, hidden by the leader of the seder and ransomed back by the children. The seder meal cannot be completed without the return and eating of the afikomen.

New Uses
A symbol of brokenness; a symbol of finding new pieces of ourselves.

from http://www.ritualwell.org/Glossary/symbol.html?symbol=311

For those who don't know, the word seder here refers to a Passover service and matzah is unleavened bread.

To add to this, we must consider the purpose of James wanting to write to gentile churches concerning the subject of the prohibition of consuming blood: The heathen consumed blood in worship to their idols, thus, in order to keep the consumption of blood out of Christian worship it was expedient to remind them that this is not accepted in Christianity. James reminded them of this, but centuries later, it was forgotten, and as a result the heresy of transubstantiation evolved from this Pagan superstition which the apostles had warned against.

[ April 11, 2003, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[LisaMC]

Charles,

Here's an exerpt from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia on Doctors of the Catholic Church:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm

Doctors of the Church

(Lat. Doctores Ecclesiae) -- Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The "four Doctors" became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. "Gloriosus", de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).

In the Eastern Church three Doctors were pre-eminent: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI, the Wise, the deposer of Photius. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called "the feast of the three Hierarchs". In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John, Bishop of Euchaitae, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118; see "Acta SS.", 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in manuscripts to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus (i, 3) remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, St. Athanasius being very properly added to the three hierarchs.

To these great names others have subsequently been added. The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in extending to the universal church the use of the Office and Mass of a saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church. . . .

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Glen Seeker:
A year later, they're at a Passover meal and Jesus pronounces the blessing over the bread and then says, "Take this and eat. This is my body."

At that moment, this man, Jesus, who had the words of life, who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, who cured the sick, who healed the blind, crippled, and leprous, who even raised the dead back to life, now gave them his body to eat and his blood to drink under the forms of bread and wine.

At that moment, they thought, "NO, Jesus, you mean this bread symbolizes your body and the wine symbolizes your blood."

I think Not.

I think they took him at face value and believed he meant what he said.

And that is what they taught to those who came after them. Maybe that is why the Christians were seen as cannibals by the Romans. They ate and drank the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.

You don't know the Jewish context of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Jesus was performing a Passover Seder. That includes pausing at points over elements fo the meal to give interpretations of them in order to call attention to the significance of those elements in the original passover meal. Jesus, when he said "this is my body/blood", was interpreting the elements as to their signficance in the New Covenant, as opposed to the Exodus. There is nothing in their religio-cultural context that prepared them for the kind of thinking you attribute to them. Your thinking is no more valid in this regard than Bultmann was in treating the biblical people as though they were existentialists.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem to be fixated on Catholics rather than Catholicism

I stand corrected.

It is "Catholicism" that does not "expect the desciples to take a BITE out of Christ in John 6 while pretending that it is taking the John 6 narrative as a literal command to eat Christ's flesh".

It is "catholicism" that does not "take Christ literally" at the last supper when He says "take eat THIS IS my body which IS BROKEN for you" knowing that Christ HAD NOT YET been sacrificed and His body had NOT YET been broken - so the break COULD not be the crucified body of Christ.


"For as OFTEN as you EAT this bread and DRINK this cup you do so TO ME in PERSON" instead of "you DO so IN REMEMBERANCE of ME"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[raymond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lisa>>>>>

That's only an argument if you insist that Augustine is referring to eating real flesh and blood. This sentence does not rule out the figurative use.

Notice: So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood . . . .

That's not the same as saying: He both gave us His Body and Blood.

How do you justly disregard: This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; IT IS THEREFORE A FIGURE. . .that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. <<<<<<<<

Lisa,

I am afraid you might not be understanding the Catholic position. There is nothing that Augustine says about "memory" or "FIGURE" that is contrary to what the Church teaches. The Eucharist is a Memorial and it is Symbolic.

A great and beautiful Gift *symbolizes* God's Love for us. Where we seem to be getting crossways is over what you perceive as Augustine's denial of the *reality* of the Flesh and Blood. You point to Augustine's denying that Jesus, in John 6, was directing His followers to kill Him and eat Him right then and there. But we also deny that that is what Jesus was intending. Augustine is simply precursing the Council of Trent's definition of an "unbloody sacrifice".

Would it be fair to charactarize your position as opposed to ours as follows:

a) Catholics believe "symbolic" means that something has a meaning. It can be imaginary or it can be real. i.e. Jesus' Death and Resurrection are symbols of God's infinite love human beings.

b) You believe "symbolic" can only be imaginary.

your brother

 

[LisaMC]

raymond,

Before Augustine ever addressess the Psalms or Homilies of John, etc . . . he lays down his guidelines for proper reading and interpretation of Scripture in the book On Christian Doctrine. Now, after you read his tips, and advice on reading, interpreting, or understanding Scripture, you can then read the rest of his texts with proper understanding and correctness as to when he is or isn't speaking in the same figurative sense he attributes to Scripture. See the exerpts below:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-34.htm#P5083_2727654

From Book III

Chapter 5.-It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense.

9.But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."22 For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

Chapter 10.-How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.

14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor. Now all these matters have been spoken of in the first book.

Chapter 15.-Rule for Interpreting Figurative Expressions.

23. The tyranny of lust being thus over-thrown, charity reigns through its supremlly just laws of love to God for His own sake, and love to one's self and one's neighbor for God's sake. Accordingly, in regard to figurative expressions, a rule such as the following will be observed, to carefully turn over in our minds and meditate upon what we read till an interpretation be found that tends to establish the reign of love. Now, if when taken literally it at once gives a meaning of this kind, the expression is not to be considered figurative.

Chapter 16.-Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."35 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;" and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, "for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,"36 one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man's pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, "He who loveth his life shall lose it,"37 we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man's duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, "Let him lose his life"-that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: "Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner."38 The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, "help not a sinner." Understand, therefore, that "sinner" is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

[ April 14, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]