Just to correct the first sentence:
| "On taking John 6 literally, Western (Latin) Catholics, Alexandrian Catholics (Coptic, Eritrean and Ethiopian), West Syrian (Maronite, Syriac, Syro-Malankara), Armenian Catholic. Byzantine (Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, the Catholics of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Greek Catholics, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, East Syrian, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabar Catholics, *plus" Eastern Orthodox: Church of Constantinople, Greek Church of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Church of Greece, Churches of Georgia, of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Albania, of Poland, Church of Slovakia and the Czech Lands, Church of Sinai (Jerusalem Patriarchate), (Ecumenical Patriarchate) Church of Crete, of Finland, of Estonia, (Moscow Patriarchate) Church of Japan, of Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Church of Ukraine (Kyiv Patriarchate), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church, *plus* the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Jacobite Syrian Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, *plus* others I may have failed to mention, almost all of them founded 1,000 years earlier than the Reformation, many of them reading the Scriptures in the original languages, many founded by the Apostles themselves--- claim to take Jn 6 literally..." |
Excuse the catalogue approach. It's not mere pedantry. It's illustrative of the most ancient Christian communities with the most ancient understandings of Scripture, many of whom know Greek, Western Syriac and Aramaic very well, some of whom are not under the direct jurisdiction of Rome OR Constantinople --- who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.
If we're going to talk about the meaning of words, I would personally go back to the people who have the longest continuous lexical familiarity with those words --- as well as being much closer to the cultural contexts.
You won't find any ancient church which does *not* believe that the elements of the Eucharist, under the appearance of bread and wine, become the true Body and Blood of Christ.
It's the seminary-scribes of the West, I think, who have substituted spurious innovations for the continuous, lived understanding of the oldest Christian communities on the planet.
It's probably because of the impoverished concept of "Sola Scriptura" -- a doctrine not found in Scripture, and which turns out to mean "All hail the Magisterium of the Seminary Professors," "All power to the guy who learned Greek yesterday" --- which simply spurns the wisdom of the Church.
Appeals to pedigree are invalidated by the first two hundred and fifty years - Both Paul and John declare that iniquity was already entering the Church in their time, so traditions forming even then were heretical. Your 'catalogue approach' merely demonstrates that adoption of the Eucharist was a very early addition, from before the various splits which define the liturgical churches which you would endorse. That there is so very little evidence before 300AD (extant, in situ, and really before 400AD) defies any proofs after the fact.
[...] who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.
Again, a matter of little consequence, because one cannot omit the Hebrews - The undoubted authors of the text - who, even in their Messianic strains, find no solace at all in the theory of the Eucharist... The vast majority of whom, btw, believe it (rightly in my mind) to be a syncretism from Mithraism, whose rite is closely related, and whose root runs far deeper than Christianity in Egypt and Persia. And without a chain of evidence dating all_the_way_back, an adaption from paganism seems very likely.
Yet even if there were inescapable and perfect evidence of an early date, without sure linkage into Judaism, from which Christianity undoubtedly came, There can still be no legitimacy.
Thus, a simpleton such as I, who would question such things (rightly and in good conscience), must necessarily return to the originating contract, where no such uncertainty exists. Having found no authorized agent proffering authorized change (which is literally impossible), I will be content to stick with the original terms. Hence sola-scriptura.
Is there ANY scriptural evidence the apostles that did not depart ... actually practiced communion, or the eucharistic practice ... of bread to flesh, wine to blood ?