tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post8526327064367404647..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: John 6 (Eucharist): Plausibility of the Literal Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-65717503346641019072012-11-30T17:14:12.375-05:002012-11-30T17:14:12.375-05:00"Flesh" in the verses I produced refers ..."Flesh" in the verses I produced refers to the old nature or sinful propensity: in the sense of how Christians say we are warring against "the world, the flesh, and the devil." <br /><br />This is how "spirit" and "flesh" are contrasted also in John 6: not in a way to somehow say (as Gnostics would) that "flesh" (meaning, physical flesh) is "bad" and "spirit" good.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36550135455750160722012-11-30T17:11:25.621-05:002012-11-30T17:11:25.621-05:00Hi Joshua,
Read the paragraph before those passag...Hi Joshua,<br /><br />Read the paragraph before those passages very carefully.<br /><br />What I'm arguing is that the Protestant attempted contrast between "flesh and spirit" in John 6 (to try to prove symbolism) doesn't work because elsewhere (massively) in Scripture it has a distinct meaning that is contrary to how it is attempted to be used in John 6.<br /><br />"Spirit" in John 6 does not refer to a supposedly symbolic or non-substantial Eucharist.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42733159562223760522012-11-30T16:05:35.047-05:002012-11-30T16:05:35.047-05:00Hey Dave, or anyone else for that matter,
I have a...Hey Dave, or anyone else for that matter,<br />I have a question about this post, hopefully someone will respond even though the post is old. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shack, and I don't understand how the middle section fits in the argument. I see how John 6:47-66 sets the context for the argument. I can also see how everything after "...hardness of heart leading to unbelief:" supports the Catholic interpretation. I am confused by the verses between "humanity enriched by God's grace ("spirit"):" and "In other words...". I'm very used to the practice of stating your opponents argument before proposing your own, so are these verses supporting the Protestant position? If they are supporting the Catholic position, how?<br /><br />Are the verses meant to demonstrate a contrast between a nature that produces sin (whether in the form of physical or mental acts) and a nature that produces righteousness (whether in the form of physical or mental acts). Is the first nature described "of the flesh" merely rhetorically, signifying the connection between humanity (which is characterized by flesh) and sin. Is the nature described "of the spirit" because it comes from the holy spirit, or because rebirth has no outward physical signs like our first births?<br /><br />Anyways, any help on this is greatly appreciated.Joshua Bennierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09872033066659405610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78779294189878476582009-08-24T21:39:11.097-04:002009-08-24T21:39:11.097-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36429795632505228372009-08-24T18:09:58.966-04:002009-08-24T18:09:58.966-04:00Since the term "true presence" has now b...Since the term "true presence" has now been introduced, it is as well to say that Catholics believe in the true presence of Christ in, for instance: <br /><br />His Word; each praying community gathered in His Name; the poor and afflicted; and the person of the consecrated priest (CCC #1373, quoting scriptural authority as well as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n.7).<br /><br />The Eucharistic Presence is also "true" (Jn.6:55), but the mode is unique in being not only spiritual (and yes, a spiritual presence is a real presence) but substantial, full, whole and entire (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity). <br /><br />Pope Paul VI said of this Eucharistic Presence that, when the Church calls it "real", she does so "not to exclude the idea that the others are 'real' too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence" (Encyclical, Mysterium fidei, 1965, #39).<br /><br />At some stage, of course, rational analysis has to cease, because the Eucharist is the sublime Mystery of Faith.<br /><br />Pope Paul VI (op. cit., at #17) approvingly quoted St. John Chrysostom to this effect:-<br /><br />"Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems to contradict our reason and intellect; let His word prevail over our reason and intellect. <br /><br />"Let us act in this way with regard to the Eucharistic mysteries, and not limit our attention just to what can be perceived by the senses, but instead hold fast to His words. For His word cannot deceive." <br /><br />This very pointedly returns us to Jn.6:53-56.Bain Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287627190553545889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59251134540702134482009-08-24T17:36:26.188-04:002009-08-24T17:36:26.188-04:00Do you understand the distinctions St Thomas drew ...Do you understand the distinctions St Thomas drew in terms of incidents and accidents? That was helpful for me. I did have an understanding of the Eucharist in terms like Calvin's. Once I understood fully St Thomas' language I didn't have a problem there either. <br /><br />As the to conditions under which this change occurs. That I struggled with more. The idea that the criteria had to be knowable and therefore could not be spiritual. That went against my protestant druthers. But it is practical. How can we "Do this in rememberance of me" if we don't have an objective thing to do?Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90731524599805356592009-08-24T17:34:14.996-04:002009-08-24T17:34:14.996-04:00I do not think Dave intended to imply any divergen...I do not think Dave intended to imply any divergence in essentials between Catholic and Orthodox belief in the literal reality of Christ's physical and spiritual presence in the Eucharistic species.<br /><br />While it is true that Orthodox tradition declines to speculate as to the "how" of the Mystery of the Eucharistic presence, the term "metousiosis" (meaning "transubstantiation) was deployed in refuting Calvinistic doctrines in the 17th century, and it remains in use. <br /><br />See Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus adopted by the pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) where we find:-<br /><br />". . . the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord . . ." <br /><br />(the full English translation can be accessed at, e.g., http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html).<br /><br />The very proliferation of terms in the Decree demonstrates, however, that the particular term "transubstantiation" is not regarded as a dogmatic definition by the Orthodox.Bain Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287627190553545889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26237332667542747022009-08-24T16:29:42.329-04:002009-08-24T16:29:42.329-04:00According to Catholic dogma, yes, they go together...According to Catholic dogma, yes, they go together.<br /><br />But a non-Catholic Christian could accept Real Presence and not transubstantiation by following the Orthodox, Lutheran, and some Anglican models.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10638467991672799292009-08-24T15:12:24.442-04:002009-08-24T15:12:24.442-04:00Yes. The Catholic use of "Real Presence,&quo...Yes. The Catholic use of "Real Presence," I suspect, is confusing to Protestants.<br /><br />I'm starting to understand better now. I've been doing some reading. For example, Calvin believed in what he called the "True Presence" of Christ in the elements, which term he used to distinguish from "Real Presence." By this he meant that Christ was spiritually present but not present in body. To Calvin, the bread and wine are no less instruments of grace in that regard because of His spiritual presence; a spiritual presence of Christ is no less "real" than a bodily presence.<br /><br />This concept seems biblically plausible to me. It's not a question of what is possible for God, but rather what the biblical text is likely telling us.<br /><br />My understanding now is that if I should accept the idea of the "Real Presence" according to Catholic thought, I would have to embrace transubstantiation. So I currently cannot subscribe to the "Real Presence" in the RCC sense.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22300219977552437062009-08-24T11:50:15.541-04:002009-08-24T11:50:15.541-04:00GREAT comments, guys! Thanks.GREAT comments, guys! Thanks.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-52238654635739506062009-08-24T06:39:42.093-04:002009-08-24T06:39:42.093-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69805142506810415902009-08-24T04:28:00.188-04:002009-08-24T04:28:00.188-04:00Maybe “another voice” might help pilgrimsarbor gra...Maybe “another voice” might help pilgrimsarbor grasp the distinction between "real presence" and "transubstantiation" as used by Dave. <br /><br />"Real presence" is the "what" - the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Our Lord is present in the Eucharistic species not in a figurative way, but literally ("realiter ac substantialiter" according to the Council of Trent, AD 1551, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, chapter 1). <br /><br />Absent a conversion to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, there must be a very serious confusion in terms if pilgrimsarbor can accept the "real presence" in the Eucharist.<br /><br />"Transubstantiation" is the "how" - the change accomplished at the consecration during Mass (as explained by the Council of Trent in chapter 4 of the Decree on the Eucharist).<br /><br />St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose (contemporaries, and two of the greatest Doctors of the Church - one from the East and one from the West) are witnesses that the change in the material substance of the bread and wine was well understood more than eleven hundred years before Trent: Chrysostom says that God’s power and grace "transforms the things offered", and Ambrose says it "change(s) their nature".<br /><br />See, on this: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) #1373-1381, esp. at 1375 where the quotes mentioned above are given with fuller context and references.Bain Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287627190553545889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-87429256401048814782009-08-23T20:18:42.731-04:002009-08-23T20:18:42.731-04:00But if any doctrine qualifies for a consensus with...<i>But if any doctrine qualifies for a consensus with virtually no exceptions in the fathers it is Real Presence (not transubstantiation, which is a development of that).</i><br /><br />Ah, that is a very important distinction. I need to understand the difference between "Real Presence" and transubstantiation; I haven't separated them in my mind, but I would be more open to some kind of "Real Presence" than transubstantiation, myself.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24251421643522580122009-08-23T20:04:38.378-04:002009-08-23T20:04:38.378-04:00OK, cool.
The term "unanimous consent" ...OK, cool.<br /><br />The term "unanimous consent" in the original Latin does not mean "absolutely every one," as we define it today but "overwhelming consensus."<br /><br />But if any doctrine qualifies for a consensus with virtually no exceptions in the fathers it is Real Presence (not transubstantiation, which is a development of that).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62036298352118204142009-08-23T13:08:52.268-04:002009-08-23T13:08:52.268-04:00Dave,
You said...
You pass by my challenge as to...Dave,<br /><br />You said...<br /><br /><i>You pass by my challenge as to why the early Church believed in the Real Presence as if this is some mystery...</i><br /><br />Again, as I have stated already (and find it necessary to repeat again):<br /><br /><i>Regarding the "unanimous consent" of the church fathers, I would have to check on that.</i><br /><br />When I say I have to check on it, I mean that no answer is forthcoming from me until I do some research, your continuing requests for immediate responses from me notwithstanding. I am aware that the weight of Church history favours the Real Presence understanding. If I find some who disagree with the Real Presence theory, then all I ask, <b>for the sake of clarity</b>, is that you cease using the term "unanimous consent of the fathers" and adopt the more accurate term "consensus" or "majority view," if you prefer. After all, the majority view was against Athanasius. Reformed folks see that event as God's intervention in the life of Athanasius to preserve His Church when "all the world" was against him. If we had acquiesced to the Church then without disputation <b>from the Scriptures</b>, especially John 1:1-2, who knows where we would be today? Undoubtedly some kind of Reformation would have happened anyway, but perhaps with different emphases.<br /><br />So can the consensus of the Church be wrong? Of course. There's no question about it. It's not even up for debate. This is not even to mention all the heresies rampant in the very days of the apostles themselves with which they had to contend. The Scriptures are replete with such descriptions. Galatians alone is a battle plan for fighting heresy.<br /><br />I would hasten to add, however, that when you say this:<br /><br /><i>...a person who claims that the Bible is clearly against Real Presence...</i><br /><br />I am not certain it is clear at all. As I said before I will say again: I do not believe that Jesus meant for us to understand Him that way. This is quite a different statement to "the Bible is clearly against Real Presence," a statement I have never made. In fact, I allow that you could be right while I continue to think that you are not. Though I have written vigourously in defence of my position, and expect to continue to do so, I have never said that your position is impossible. I believe it to be highly unlikely. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59373668295843409712009-08-23T10:42:26.844-04:002009-08-23T10:42:26.844-04:00It is hard to analyze a person's motives. I ha...It is hard to analyze a person's motives. I have an uncle who is gay. He has joined a church in Holland that says homosexual acts are OK. They have biblical arguments so he claims he is just following the scripture. I am sure he is sincere in that those arguments sound good to him. But why do they sound good to him? Any outside observer can see that his sexual behavior and the gay culture around it has influenced his judgment big time. But he can't see that. He just sees traditional Christians as bigots.<br /><br />This is a real defect in Sola Scriptura. It cannot break unconscious errors. It relies on the person's judgment to be intact or at least for them to know they can't trust their own judgment. But it is just not the case. People are influenced by others without know it all the time. The history of philosophy is nothing but the study of those thought streams. To say they don't effect exegesis is just untenable. To say they don't effect YOUR exegesis is just denial. But you have to live in this denial or Sola Scriptura collapses.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78932242936180586862009-08-23T04:50:32.416-04:002009-08-23T04:50:32.416-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33017909418836294032009-08-23T03:12:24.805-04:002009-08-23T03:12:24.805-04:00I'm not saying you necessarily believe this, o...I'm not saying you necessarily believe this, or that it motivates you, so it is not slander. I'm talking about possible background factors that contribute to the way that Protestants think, and I am generalizing. You say you don't denigrate matter, fine. So you don't.<br /><br />But you may have taken in various viewpoints that have that perspective as their premise. We all are influenced subtly by things we may not even be aware of.<br /><br />You generalize yourself. You are doing no differently than I am doing. You pass by my challenge as to why the early Church believed in the Real Presence as if this is some mystery (it's very well known; consult, e.g., J.N.D. Kelly's book on patristics, or Philip Schaff). Then you make out that if you find one or two who believe as you do, then the unanimity would be nullified. Even if you can find one or two, big wow. So that discussion goes nowhere; but it is very relevant. <br /><br />I think it is extremely important that a person who claims that the Bible is clearly against Real Presence, has some theory as to how and why the entire early Church got this wrong. What in the world happened there? Many of your comrades adopt a mass apostasy as the explanation, for this very reason, because they can see all the "Catholic" stuff that we see in the actual history.<br /><br />You have to have some explanation for that, it seems to me, if you want to take Christian history seriously (as I think you do).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72041358705358443782009-08-23T03:07:30.743-04:002009-08-23T03:07:30.743-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22475926049570046062009-08-23T02:14:36.304-04:002009-08-23T02:14:36.304-04:00Dave,
As I said, your theory is interesting. How...Dave,<br /><br />As I said, your theory is interesting. However, it has no bearing on what I believe nor on what any other Reformed person I know believes.<br /><br />Let me see if I can explain what has happened here.<br /><br />You have developed a theory in which you seem quite confident. I've seen you state it in other posts and comments as well. Others commenting here have either adopted your views or have their own similar theories. Now, in spite of everything I've said to the contrary about what I and other Reformed people believe, this theory is still insisted upon. This is a straw man argument; attributing beliefs to someone which are not their own, and then tearing them down.<br /><br />This cuts both ways. For example, I could insist that Catholics worship statues, and proceed to say why that is a horrid thing. Now you would undoubtedly say to me, "Not only do we not worship statues, but we do not worship the Saint depicted by the image of the statue." It would be incumbent upon me to correct my previous statement in order to represent your views fairly, would it not? But instead, if I say, in effect, "I have no interest in what you tell me about what you believe. You worship statues, and that is that." Would I not be a wretched person for slandering you in such a way when you specifically denied my premise? My assertions become the arbiter of everything you believe, rather than what you tell me you believe. "If I say it, it must be so" is the end result. (By the way, let's not get off track about whether this example of images actually happens to Catholics or not. I know it does, but that is not the point I'm making with my analogy).<br /><br />Likewise, when commenters here tell me that I hate matter and love spirit, or some such nonsense, and relate it to the incarnation of the Lord Jesus whom I love, and I tell you that I have no such beliefs, and yet they continue to assert these things, am I not the victim of a lie? I am, just as surely as my straw man argument about statues would victimize you. It is, in fact, morally wrong and a sin to continue to attribute beliefs to someone when once they have demonstrated those assertions to be false. This, of course, assumes a basic agreement on theological definitions and so forth, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.<br /><br />I'm not going to develop theories about the motivations of Catholics whose practices I think are off track. I'm not against theories in general about theological issues, but I do think that my opponent's denial of my theory regarding his beliefs and motivations should put that part of the matter to rest. It's fine if the discussion continues, but it must be done fairly and in good faith. Both communions should expect no less from each other.<br /><br />And now, I'm going to bed after a fun day with the family at the Franklin Institute. As for Calvin, the Puritans and all the other things you mentioned, I am not those people, and I'm not convinced they've been portrayed rightly.<br /><br />Regarding the "unanimous consent" of the church fathers, I would have to check on that. If I come up with something a church father said that disputes your claim of unanimous consent, we can talk some more. And if I don't, then we'll talk some more!<br /><br />Either way, I remain as always your crazy Calvinist friend,<br /><br />PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70981602754081221542009-08-23T01:58:46.491-04:002009-08-23T01:58:46.491-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28801502787901564242009-08-23T01:39:32.601-04:002009-08-23T01:39:32.601-04:00I should have added to my list above the denigrati...I should have added to my list above the denigration of Christmas, too, in the Puritanistic mentality. I've argued with Calvinists today who believe that.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44641765015197991042009-08-23T01:36:49.166-04:002009-08-23T01:36:49.166-04:00Why don't we flip it around, though. If you th...Why don't we flip it around, though. If you think Real Substantial Presence is so clearly wrong and not indicated in Scripture at all, why is it, in your opinion, why the Church Fathers were unanimous in espousing it? Why couldn't they see what you see there? How did that come about? What is your theory? If you ponder that, I think you'll have an opinion about why we believe as we do, just as we have an opinion on the deeper causes for Protestant departures from previous orthodoxy.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24706453239892415442009-08-23T01:33:16.614-04:002009-08-23T01:33:16.614-04:00It might be mere projection if it was just me, but...It might be mere projection if it was just me, but I was by no means unique in terms of Protestantism.<br /><br />I think we see it all over the place in Protestantism: the Puritanistic antipathy to even moral sexuality, the fundamentalist frowning upon dancing, even music, iconoclasm (which was certainly rampant in Calvinist circles), the extreme aversion to statues and things of that sort (the early Calvinists even smashed stained glass, organs, and statues of Christ), the secularization of marriage so that it is no longer sacramental: the hostility towards crucifixes because Jesus is still on the cross: the horror of relics, the quick recourse to charges of idolatry of the Catholic Mass because we believe in transubstantiation (Calvin mocked Luther for being "half-papist" and an advocate of idolatry because of his belief in the Real Presence, the adoption of a purely symbolic Eucharist and baptism in many circles. <br /><br />On and on it goes.<br /><br />Perhaps your brand of Reformdom does relatively better in many of these respects, but I still maintain that this viewpoint is quite prevalent in Protestantism considered as a whole.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57108125449710165502009-08-23T00:39:26.175-04:002009-08-23T00:39:26.175-04:00Greetings Dave,
And by the way, I speak from pers...Greetings Dave,<br /><br /><i>And by the way, I speak from personal experience: my own past views. I thought that spirit was superior to matter, and that a realism in the Eucharist was a primitive, inferior view that was a step down from the pure spiritual realities.<br /><br />This showed Docetic and ultimately Gnostic influence.</i><br /><br />You have developed an interesting theory to explain why people like me just can't (or won't, as you might say) see the things that are so obvious to you. That's fine. You seem to have a sincere felt need to do that, so I don't judge you for it.<br /><br />I think it's a mistake, however, to bring your own subjective experience into the mix and project that onto another personality. I have no thoughts or beliefs such as "spirit is superior to matter," or that the RCC idea of the Eucharist is a "primitive, inferior view." Everything God created (for the purpose of our discussion here, particularly matter) He declared "good." Of course, we speak of that time before the fall of man.<br /><br />All Reformed Christians have a very highly developed biblical concept of the resurrection of the body. The consummation of all nature and creation at the end of time is very physical, literal and real. We all believe this. We will live forever in glorified physical bodies which are in some measure like our present earthly bodies. Jesus demonstrated this to us with His own resurrection. He is the model, the type for that which is to come to all true believers wherever they may be found.<br /><br />If you were not a part of a Reformed fellowship previously, this may not have been well taught. I think you know of my annoyance (and worse) at what passes for theology in the non-Reformed Evangelical Protestant world today. And if you were Reformed previously, then you were merely mistaken. No Reformed confession ever made such an antipathy between matter and spirit. I can't speak to the occasional individual viewpoint, if any.<br /><br />No. I think your assessment is unwarranted. I just don't buy it. Maybe it was true for you, but that has never been, nor ever will be, true for me. It may be true of someone else somewhere, but I doubt very much that a Reformed believer would ever look at things that way. I've never known one who has.<br /><br />Best as always in Christ,<br /><br />PilgrimsarbourPilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.com