[Mad Dawg]

One problem with the adversarial nature of these discussions is that people say things with a certain air of triumphant refutation, and I never have any clue (or rarely) of what their argument it.

I'm guessing that you disagree with Hahn and offer your remarks as some kind of refutation but a reductio ad absurdum. Am I right?

If so, have pity on my dumbitude and explain it further, please.

[armydoc]

One problem with the adversarial nature of these discussions is that people say things with a certain air of triumphant refutation, and I never have any clue (or rarely) of what their argument it. I'm guessing that you disagree with Hahn and offer your remarks as some kind of refutation but a reductio ad absurdum. Am I right? If so, have pity on my dumbitude and explain it further, please.

Hahn is arguing for a literal interpretation of John 6, focusing on proving the Catholic view of the nature of the Eucharist. However, that literal interpretation forces a conclusion that taking the Eucharist is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. Obviously, no one, including Catholics, believe this, for good reason. It does not fit with the whole of scripture. Therefore, we must conclude that John 6 is not talking of the physical, but rather the spiritual (which Jesus plainly tells us in 6:63).