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.
Which as you can see is not even remotely about me going for an allegorical explanation without warrant. Now I'm an old guy, and I don't always remember everything just right, so I won't hold this against you. No harm no foul.
However, there is a larger point to pick up here. The use of a well-disciplined hermeneutic actually produces less, not more, obscure meanings, and much less reliance on suspiciously obtained allegory, than an open-ended or even undefined hermeneutic.
So what you regard as a "radically wrong" approach, the looking for analogy when difficulties arise, would indeed be wrong IF applied everywhere. If you thought that's what I meant, you've misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear. So let me state it more precisely: 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, as per these three verses:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.Matthew 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS KEPT SECRET FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."
Mark 4:11-12 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'SEEING THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST THEY SHOULD TURN, AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM.' "
So you see how this hermeneutic works. God is telling us to look for analogy in the public teaching ministry of Jesus. So duh, that's what we look for.
BTW, I notice you haven't addressed my question about Augustine versus Trent. For review, here is the "seditious" passage in Augustine:
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. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16.
See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm for full context.
So again, what I want to know is why Augustine gets away with saying that but Protestant's don't. The above passage could be read in any Baptist or reformed or Lutheran (etc etc etc) church, and received warmly as Gospel truth. Why does Augustine get a pass on this and we don't?
As to what exactly is the analogy of John 6, it is clear 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. So from the getgo He was pointing past the immediate situation.
But to what? The ceremonial transformation of bread? Not likely. There is no mention of the Passover celebration here. In fact, John doesn't even mention the Eucharistic elements of the final Passover meal at all.
The best clue is still back in the passage itself, in Jesus' words in John 6:63:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Note the second half of that verse. That is the part that guided my earlier paraphrase, to which you objected, but there are His words. It is belief in Him, the accepting of His words, that nourishes us. That, he says here plainly, is where we find our life. It is through His words we learn that eternal life comes by believing in Him, by looking not to our own righteousness, but to His broken body and his shed blood as our perfect substitute in judgment. All these things, and many more, encompassed in the figure of drawing all the nourishment we will ever need for life eternal, from Him as our principal food, and our most treasured drink.
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?