Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

Annalex: Well, that is unfortunate because there was nothing ordinary about virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, nor, to that matter, "manna" falling from the sky and five loaves feeding thousands.

Spreingfield Reformer: Which as you can see is not even remotely about me going for an allegorical explanation without warrant.

You perceive a contradiction in my words? The virgin birth, and the resurrection are miracles that the Church believes are not allegory of something but facts. Likewise the manna, likewise the five loaves and two fish feeding thousands, likewise the consecrated bread and wine becoming not allegorical Jesus but substantially Jesus. That is supported by the Holy Scripture because the language describing all these miracles is plain and direct and not indicative of allegory. Any kind of hermeneutics that looks at something contrary to nature described in the Bible and dashes for the allegory is flawed beyond repair.

If, in the public discourses of Jesus, we meet a saying that is not ordinarily possible the way it was said, we have God Himself telling us to look for an analogy of meaning

Yup; that is how I understood you the first time. It is wrong. Resurrection and virgin birth, and all the miracles in the Gospel are "not ordinarily possible" the way anyone would describe them. Ordinarily, sexual acts precede birth, dead people stay dead, bread stays bread.

God is telling us to look for analogy in the public teaching ministry of Jesus

Good grief. Seriously? Whatever He said I should then seek a hidden (*) meaning? By the way, there is no parable of Jesus that a half-way attentive reader would not understand the meaning of; parables are teaching tools, not obfuscation tools.

why Augustine gets away with saying that but Protestant's don't

What do you mean by "gets away"? That quote is plain contrary to the Catholic doctrine. St. Augustine is not inerrant; this would not be the only opinion of his that is held as error by the Church; I listed another, about predestination being an equivalent of grace.

Anathemas are issued not to teach a doctrine but to point out a falsehood that is endangering souls. Augustine's writing on the "figure" was not creating a schism in the Church till 15 Century; when it became a movement scattering the Church, it was condemned. Of course, Trent did not have an effect on Augustine's person because he was dead already.

Jesus did NOT mean, and I think we can actually agree on this, that they should try to eat his body and blood right there on the spot.

Right, but we don't have to reach for non-existent allegories to apprehend that. He said that the bread will be His body; the entire conversation in John 6 is in future tense, and the references to life eternal, divinity of Jesus, and the spirit that would profit throughout the discourse point to something miraculous that will happen but has not happened. It actually happened at the Last Supper, when the phrase is present tense and terse, and a statement of fact: "this is my body".

There is no mention of the Passover celebration here

Nor should there be. The Mass is prefigured in the Passover episode which is also reflected in the Seder. However, the Mass is the Golgotha hill, not the Seder. The bitter herbs and the sweets, the multiple cups and the rest of the Passover meal are not present in the Mass and they were not spoken about by Jesus. There are many semantic connections here, but not the actual commingling of the Jewish rite and the Catholic rite.

he says here plainly, is where we find our life [...]

Yes, He does, but that -- and the rest of your post there, -- does not negate His previous speech. Of course with the Eucharist we also consume the entirety of the Christian doctrine, -- both by conscious learning at the Liturgy of the word and by turning to the Savior in spirit, letting Him in physically to abide in us. The Mass is entirely consistent with the dual meaning of Christ as the Word (John 1:1).

Perhaps the confusion begins with seeing the Holy Mass as ceremony, when in fact it is encounter with the Word Entire.

***

(*) On that score. Observe that after the Resurrection Christ spends 40 days "speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). You don't think the doctrine was given the nascent Church then?

Christ is God and worked many miracles. Holding His body in His hands at the Last Supper was one of them.

You perceive a contradiction in my words? The virgin birth, and the resurrection are miracles that the Church believes are not allegory of something but facts.

We are having a fundamental communication problem. It's like you're not actually reading what I'm saying. Seriously. I don't get it. The literal hermeneutic, as I explained before, has no trouble picking up supernatural events described in ordinary language. I am so confused at your response here I'm going to just let this go for now. I've said what I wanted to say, you didn't interact with it in a way I could , so OK, there it is.

But I do note you once again avoided interacting with those three Scriptures that specifically indicate we should expect pretty much everything Jesus says in His public teaching ministry to be analogical (parable). I'd understand if you didn't want to deal with them.

That's how Scripture is. God doesn't play favorites. We all find things in there that challenge our fixed beliefs. It's just a part of Christian growth to be able recognize when God is telling us something we never expected to hear. Like Paul when he hit that commandment about not coveting. Ouch. But dealing with it changed his life for the better. Just sayin ...

the entire conversation in John 6 is in future tense,

Patently untrue. Go back to your Greek Bible and review the tense in each of these verses:

John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 6:48 I am that bread of life.
John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Look at all the occurrences of the verb of being. They are uniformly present tense IF talking about consuming nourishment from Christ as either the heavenly bread or as true food and true drink etc. They are future tense in describing either his crucifixion (verse 51) which was still future, or the eternal benefits of this consuming of Christ, which is perfectly natural when you are talking about the eternal future.

But the act of actually eating Christ here is always put in the immediate, right now sense. Which is why it is important to notice that No one really thought, OK, so lets start the meal now. It didn't happen, yet Jesus posed it grammatically as though it COULD happen right then and there, and as we know from verse 63, because the referent is living on His words, living on his person in spiritual and not fleshly terms, IS something they could do right then and there, and Peter picks up on this, to cap off the dialogue, by showing he really understood what Christ was saying:

John 6:67-69 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Dan spent a lot of energy ...

Bla bla bla. AA, I understand, we all get that you read those words and see your Church's doctrine. It doesn't justify an insult based on ignorance of the Bible reading habits of someone you don't know. It completely discredits your position. The only real "irony" I'm seeing here is on your side of the table. Sorry.

That Rome cannot be wrong is illustrated by how you cannot point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.

Your logic once again is absurd from the beginning, and testifies to the blind devotion to Rome by which they see everything she says, and everything they say in promotion and defense of her, as being incontrovertible.

Among other things, the logic that imagines that Divine promises of God's presence perseverance as a medium and stewardship of Truth, means a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, and which is necessary for assurance of Truth, has already been shown to be fallacious, as is holding to Jn. 6:53 as literal while upholding Lumen Gentium 16, etc. (if you are born again then you have life inside).

Here, even if Rome was correct on the table of the Lord,or dozens of other things, that simply does not illustrate or translate into "that Rome cannot be wrong," nor does the absence of a verse in Jn. 6, when that text was not even made a point of examination (that I saw) mean one does not have plausible explanation for it.

Instead, it testifies to desperation in seeking to maintain the Rome as infallible and Jn. 6 as literal in the light or the fact that physically eating physical food to gain spiritual life or qualities, and consuming human flesh is nowhere seen in Scripture, much less by kosher Jews, and is instead a form of paganism.

But what is seen in Scripture is much figurative use of eating and drinking, including that of men being called "bread" and drink being called the blood of men, (Jn. 4:34) and words of God being "eaten."

And unlike physical eating food in order to gain eternal life, this figurative language is what is consistent with John, and in which and in the rest of Scripture no one is ever shown obtaining life in them, becoming spiritually alive, by physically eating, but by believing the gospel message. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) And in telling souls how they may know that they have eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) John never mentions the Lord's supper, but that of believing on Christ and seeing its fruits.

Nor is the Lord's supper ever set forth as as a means of grace or a remedy for spiritual problems in the church in all the church epistles and Rv. 2+3, as it is only manifestly described once, (1Cor. 11) and in which the issue is on the manner in which they show the Lord's death, effectually recognizing, by their communal sharing, the church as body of Christ for which Christ died, as explained

And which was part of a communal meal, a "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) nor just a wafer, and nowhere interpretive of the gospels are NT pastors ever shown even distributing bread, much less turning it into human flesh and blood.

As for your proof text, "plausible reason" what Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that i expect should eat His flesh “indeed” is easy to see, though the Roman mind meld disallows it, which is that it was for the same reason that the Lord spoke enigmatically elsewhere, as in preceding chapters inJohn, such as in referring to the temple being destroyed, and of being "born again," and of water giving eternal life. Jn. 2,3,4) These and parables also were misunderstood as was even referring to hypocrisy as "leaven." But as such cases the Lord revealed what was meant to those who walked with Him, as is the case in Jn. 6. In which the illustration that the Lord provides (Jn. 6:57) of how one would live by Him was that of how He lived by the Father, which was not by literally eating His flesh and blood, but by living by/serving Him according to His Word, with doing His will being His "meat." (Jn. 4:34)

This Word was made flesh, and provided them the Truth of Himself being the Messiah who would became the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, (Jn. 1:29) and how to worship and serve God. Thus "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)

And thus in Scripture it is by believing the gospel that one obtains life in them, even as "begat he us [believers] with the word of truth." (Ja. 1:18) And believers live by Christ as letting "the word of Christ dwell in you richly," (Col 3:16) even "the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified," Acts 20:32) And which is mainly the letters of Paul explaining the gospel of grace and holy living. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3:14)

Only this manner of receiving the Lord and living by Him is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and in which, in contrast to Rome, taking part in the Lord's supper is not set forth as the source and summit of the Christian life, but in its only manifest description (besides a "feast of charity") it is set forth as an effectual expression of faith by the manner in which it is practiced. Thus that the end of Jn. 6 the Lord states that rather than physically being with them in their stomachs, He was going to leave them, and that the "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" as regards actually giving life, and which distinction is consistent with John's constant contrast btwn that which is physical, earthly, versus spiritual and eternal, and "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Thus Peter's response is not that Christ has the flesh of eternal life gained by eating, but "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69)

And again, faith in this Truth, upon which the church was founded, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," and thus faith in His death and resurrection, versus faith in "transubstantiation," is what is elsewhere set forth as what obtains spiritual and eternal life. And which John preaches. (John 11:25-27)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Thus having begun with the metaphorical use of eating and of Christ's flesh and blood, we end up with receiving the words of the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ as obtaining life and living thereby.

As for "indeed," (alēthōs: Jn. 6:55) that simply means "of a truth," as in Luk 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God". Or Luk 21:3: "Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all." Both are understood in a certain sense as being "of a truth," and likewise "of a truth my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, and thus "he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,"

Yet in what manner the word made flesh is consumed is not determined by the use of "alēthōs," but that is seen in the light of Scripture. In which, as said, physically consuming flesh is not what is taught as the means of abiding in Christ, but that of the word of Christ abiding in them, and obeyed, which the Lord mainly used Paul as the interpreter of a the gospels and supplementary to them. (1 Timothy 4:15)

As for 1Cor. 11:17-34 , that was already been explained, showing that nowhere does it say to discern” His body in the Eucharist, which again is more romish reading into the text, but contextually refers does not refer to the nature of the elements consumed in the Lord's supper, but to recognizing the nature of the church as the body of Christ for which He died, (Acts 20:32) by how they showed His death by that communal meal. And which is the issue in the next chapter as well.

That is why when they came together it was "not for the better, but for the worse," for even though they did consume the elements, yet of a truth in reality they actually came together "not to eat the Lord's supper," (1Cor. 11:17,20) , because while sppsdly declaring the Lord's death for the church, yet "in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken..and shame them that have not." (1 Corinthians 11:21)

This was sheer hypocrisy, as it is was not just a wafer and a sip of wine that they shared, by a communal meal, and by some coming hungry, and then going and filling their faces, and not even waiting for others to eat together, they were denying the body of Christ as being made of up members for whom He died, and thus treat each other accordingly, and in which God placed both those who had some excess and the needy "that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1 Corinthians 12:24-25)

Paul thus censures this selfish manner as contrary to what they were supposed to be celebrating, and proceeds to recall the words of the institution of the Lord's supper, concluding with For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō-preach; declare] the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

And seeing as this is what they are supposed to be showing, and were not as per Paul's rebuke of their hypocrisy,

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord....For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27,29)

Wherefore , my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

Thus it is manifest that the problem was that of the manner in which they came together to eat the Lord's supper, that of coming hungry, going ahead and eating to their full ("drunken") and shaming those that had not. And thus they effectually were failing to recognize the body of Christ, as being "not one member but many," for whom He died, and thus they were not really coming together to eat the Lord's supper, (v. 20) as they were not showing, declaring, preaching the Lord's death.

And thus your idea that they were being censured for not recognizing transubstantiation is that of forcing texts again to support your church of Rome.

But of course you assert you are right because Rome cannot be wrong as you see her, so you cannot allow the text to contradict her. By one who advised those as myself should be exterminated. Yet at least even the NAB commentary recognizes on 1Cor. 11:28:

The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011028-1

You believe in the scripture alone, — read it every once in a while. It is not a slur, — it is a logical conclusion

Rather, it is an y unwarranted slur by one who manifestly examples superficial exegesis in attempting to make conclusions which are predetermined by Rome look Scriptural. And thus your frequent recourse to what the RM page calls "spitwads."

If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away. Which advice i have been spurning in even responding to such, and i suspect that you gain an indulgence for defending Rome, or seek to use up our time and energy responding to your specious assertions. So why should i continue?

Odd that this has garnered so many replies but *shrug*...who knew an old heresy would be so controversial. (I haven’t read any replies but the OP is interesting to me. )

Thanks for posting.

But this must have a basis, and thus I have asked what the RC basis is for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church...

Make no mistake, historical reasons are part of the foundation for my faith in the Church but they aren't the only reasons and indeed not even the most important. To answer your question directly, for me the answer is "experience".

Experience is a reason perhaps the chief reason. Why? Well I think it's profitable to examine what it means to have "authority". What does "authority" mean and where does it come from, in our experience as human beings. Who do we give authority to, who do we recognize as authorities in our lives?

Ultimately (because I don't have enough time to go into this with as much detail as it deserves) we recognize others as authorities when we find them to be trustworthy. For example, I don't test the food my mother gives me for poison, each time she feeds me. I would, if I didn't find her trustworthy. I would, if I didn't recognize her as an authority on food (trust me she's a good cook!).

We can all find examples such as this in our own lives where we "automatically" give authority to others, because quite simply (quite humanly) we have found them to be trustworthy, by our own experience.

So it goes (for me) with the Church. I don't trust Her just because she "says" she is of God, has the authority of God, rather I trust her because I haven't been led astray by Her. I have had sin defeated in my life because of cooperating with the Sacraments she offers. I have met and made the best friends I've ever had in my life because of her. I met and married my wife because of her. Finally (but most important) I have met CHRIST through Her.

Given all these experiences, and more, which are facts in my life, why shouldn't I trust her in other areas if my life when I seek answers? To not do so, for me, would be exactly the same thing as saying, "I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun" or "I don't believe the continent of Antarctica exists". It would be the exact same thing as saying those things, for the EXACT same reason.

What I'm trying to say is this: the authority of the Church comes from God, and the proof of this is not (ultimately)'found in a book or in history or even in what I'm sharing with you now (which is my testimony). The proof of her authority is found for anyone who comes to see for yourself, experience Christ in her midst for yourself, come and be transformed into a new creation, not by your own power, and thus by the only Other who could transform you: God Himself.

Now one might say: well that's all very well and good for you 47, but that's not my experience in the Church. I was raised Catholic, I know what it's like and there's no reason for me to recognize her authority.

That very well may be true, for someone for many people I really don't know. I do know this though, for myself I know I was poorly catechized. I thought I knew everything there was to know about the faith, when I left it.

But when I found myself searching again, searching for God IN the world, in REALITY, I found myself asking this one question over and over again: If God established and still establishes a Church today, what would it look like? Would it be recognizable? Would it be full of sinners or sinless people? Would it be welcoming to me as I was (a wretched horrible sinner) or would it only accept the elite? The ones who were "right" all the time and or the ones who already understood God and the Bible.

Of course for me the Church is a home. A place where I am welcomed not because I have all the doctrines "right", but I am welcome precisely because I do NOT, do not have anything "right" really. And this is why Jesus became man, really, to meet man where man was/is, not to expect man to become like Him BEFORE approaching Him, but to come to Him to walk a path, a journey, towards Him and His likeness.

This is the message of hope the Church offers me on a daily basis. This is what I have seen manifest already in my life and continues to manifest. THIS, is the "reason" for the Church's authority (for me): my EXPERIENCE, when I approached (and still do approach) her in poverty of spirit.

She hasn't failed me yet, in every instance I've been so poor. I submit she would have failed me already, if the authority I recognize in her were false.

Hope that helps.

We are having a fundamental communication problem. It's like you're not actually reading what I'm saying. Seriously. I don't get it.

You are seeking to see what Scripture actually teaches in order to obtain doctrine, considering literary genre etc. and what consistent in the larger context of Scripture, while an RC can only use and see Scripture as being consistent with Rome's autocratically predetermined doctrine, even if Rome has not officially interpreted all the texts RCAs appropriate as incontrovertibly meaning what they assert .

Consider Glenn Miller’s analysis on this issue: http://christianthinktank.com/hnoblood2.html#john6

Recognize it for what it is: too much the theological equivalent of Baghdad Bob's grandiose propaganda broadcasts, extolling the invincibility of the RCC.

Sure it was...

Very helpful article. Thanks for the link. I’ll make it part of my collection of resources. Very helpful hints from the Talmudic usage. That’s another reason to like John Gill’s commentaries too (one of my e-sword commentaries). Lots of good Hebraic info. Really helps set the context.

But this must have a basis, and thus I have asked what the RC basis is for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church.

for me the answer is "experience".

That may be an honest reply, and experience it certainly has a critical place, but is no different than what an evangelical can provide, and in fact the primary reason Catholics become evangelical is due to spiritual deficiency in Catholicism (more on that later), while it contradicts the very church that you see as the OTC.

For contrary to your basis for assurance, the basic premise behind of the need for a one true and infallible church is that fallible human reasoning and subjective feelings cannot provide valid assurance of truth.

Thus the argument is that texts such as promise Divine presence, guidance and preservation (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) are translated into a promise of a perpetual infallible magisterium, as it is erroneously reasoned that this is essential to provide and preserve Truth. And the historicity of Rome as the professed instrument and steward of Truth is imagined as proof of this.

we recognize others as authorities when we find them to be trustworthy.

Indeed, but Mormon's trust the LDS based on their experience and have their testimony, yet it is the objective that judges the subjective.

And while we find to be trustworthy and effectual as obeyed, in the light of it we find Rome has distorted what Scripture teaches and what the NT church is and what history is shown to testify to.

So it goes (for me) with the Church. I don't trust Her just because she "says" she is of God, has the authority of God, rather I trust her because I haven't been led astray by Her. I

Yet since Rome is what autocratically determines what is right for you, then apart from feelings, how do you know you are not being led astray by Her? Men have both engaged in the torture of fellow Catholics (even witnesses) and Christians in submission to the pope, and likewise supported the removal of children from parents (unless they would convert to Catholicism), to be raised by Rome, as well as treating even public proabortion, prosodomite pols as members in life and in death.

I understand you are referring to your experience, but not only does that vary. As seen here, we have RCs here who seem to see the real RC church as pristine, or who protest any imputation of fault of her, while others lament its modern liberal bent and even are in Catholic schism.

Of course for me the Church is a home. A place where I am welcomed not because I have all the doctrines "right", but I am welcome precisely because I do NOT, do not have anything "right" really.

Which is modern Rome, a church in which the members break with their Church's teachings more than many other groups, and even interpret which teachings are infallible as well as their meanings, and some say it did them no wrong, while others exist in sects or schism.

I summation, you basis for assurance of Rome being the OTC contradicts the very church you feel good about, while that is not the fundamental basis for what it right, which the Scriptures supremely determine.

However, your frank and courteous reply is much in contrast to the usual RC responses we see here. Thanks.

God had determined judgment, and judgment would fall. They would not be given the opportunity to escape. This too is a hard saying, but God is sovereign, and His judgment is not to be questioned. Or, as I like to think of it, God is perfectly good, and we are not. If we were perfectly good, and understood everything as well as God understands it, we would never disagree with any of His acts. Ever.

So this hermeneutic does not prevent us from seeing any of the divine truths of Scripture. What it does do is act as an insurance policy that we will not go the way of the gnostics or other offshoots by inventing elaborate networks of hidden meanings which only our “enlighted” group has the power to interpret correctly. God knows perfectly well how to communicate with us, and he has done so in such a way that it is hidden from the self-wise but fully accessible to those with the faith of a child

Just took a bit more time to reread your brilliant response. You bring up some of the most succinct and relevant points concerning this critical doctrine of the Christian faith - the purpose and plans of God as it relates to our understanding. It is easy to see how misunderstanding crept into some viewpoints and how it was perpetuated over the centuries. Unless the Holy Spirit opens eyes and hearts to the truths God communicates to us, misunderstanding WILL remain. When such is held by a ruling oligarchy, persecution and condemnation of others is inevitable. We see it STILL happening even today.

Thank you again for your input!

“your own comments, perhaps?”

Never have I said anything that even approaches some of the things that some protestants have posted.

Just a fact. Fact...something you think winks in and out of existence at your convenience.

That is part of the wider scope, but the sharing aspect is what is much missed. Making the Lord's supper to either be something in which the focus is on the elements as being the body, or just a solemn remembrance of the Lord's death, misses the convenatal sharing aspect i described re. 1Cor. 11.

The normal, communal meal is saying I am as you are, thus the Lord's supper and signifies corporate communion with the one it is sacrificially dedicated to, that being the Lord who bought the church corporate with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:32) making them members one of another, who show that death and the covenantal unity it bought by together taking part in that communal meal.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:17)

The communal ("we") meal signifies corporate( "one bread") communion with the crucified Christ, and the love we are to have for each other in that purchased body, which the Corinthians were failing to do, thus they really were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but to selfishly and independently eat supper.

Likewise to be a partaker in the table of pagan religious feasts is to be "have fellowship with devils," since "they sacrifice to devils, and not to God," (1Cor. 10:20) which is correspondent to the communion of the blood of Christ.

Never have I said anything that even approaches some of the things that some protestants have posted. Just a fact. Fact...something you think winks in and out of existence at your convenience.

Why don't you post some of those things Protestants have posted that you find so abhorrent if it's such a fact? I know I've asked you this before, but I don't recall you ever giving even one example for what you claim is anti-Catholic bigotry. Now's a good time.

you think

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

The literal hermeneutic, as I explained before, has no trouble picking up supernatural events described in ordinary language

Ah, OK. If so why can't you accept the Eucharistic miracle described by Jesus in several places in ordinary language: "this bread is my body for you to eat"?

Go back to your Greek Bible and review the tense

I shouldn't have said "entire". Naturally, when Jesus describes Himself that is present tense. Indeed He is the bread of life already. Also the general rule "except you eat, etc." is for all times so the tense is again present indefinite. The key, however, is "the bread that I will give is my flesh". This means that the bread is not given yet. Another indication that the reference is to the future Eucharist is in "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up". These are the future tenses I spoke of. So "the act of actually eating Christ here is always put in the immediate, right now sense" is not accurate.

Of course, nothing prevented Jesus from having His First Mass happen right there instead of at the Last Supper, -- except that He has his plan already and it was to have the Last Supper instead when "His hour has come". So yes there is a sense of immediacy but still the Eucharist is a future gift, not a present gift at the point of John 6.

Me: The literal hermeneutic

This is a somewhat misleading shorthand for historical-grammatical hermeneutics. It does NOT imply avoiding analogy at all costs. Rather it looks to the context, the language, the history, etc., to see if analogy is warranted, and then to proceed carefully in determining exactly what the analogy is.

For example, in the Gospels we have Christ teaching by analogy whenever he teaches in public, and in private he is always explaining the analogies, just as happened in John 6. Furthermore, we have warrant for looking for analogy in those public discourses because it was prophesied that this would be the method Messiah would use to speak to Israel.

BTW, I have at least twice provided you with three such passages indicate unambiguously that analogy is the default delivery mode for Jesus’ public teaching ministry, and you have not yet responded. I continue to be very interested in your response, because using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic on THOSE passages vindicates the presumption that the public discourse of Jesus in John 6 should be viewed as primarily analogy, under ordinary rules of language and context for spotting analogy.

Now it’s true that any such default rule is a rebuttable presumption. If I were on your side of the table, that’s where I would be taking the argument. Simply repeating naked assertions without dealing with objections is less than persuasive. I am an attorney, and I can tell you from experience your “brief” would not be taken seriously if you failed to interact meaningfully with the objections on the other side. I have won cases on such omissions.

As for the various tenses in John 6, I have already pointed out that they belong to a number of categories, future for things we would both agree are future, and present tense for most everything else. We both agree, for example, that the crucifixion was future, and I hope we can both agree that whatever benefit would accrue from that event would run to eternity future. So both of those future-looking categories are correct.

But Peter believed, right then and there, that Jesus was Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Peter through faith, right then and there, had the vital nourishing connection to Christ that is implied in John 6:63, “My words are spirit, and they are life.” When Jesus says “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.,” that is literally fulfilled by Peter and the Apostles believing in Him, trusting in Him and His mediatorial work for their salvation, right then and there. And so Jesus’ use of the present tense to describe the believer’s spiritual participation in the death and life of Christ by faith is fully justified. It was simply, literally true then, just as it is now.