Sorry, what does you answer have at all to do with what I said? You're repeatedly doing this - ignoring the substance of what I write, and then circling back to reassert things I've already replied to. You're not proving anything.
I'm assuming you're arguing for transubstantiation here. First of all, I don't believe Communion is 'merely' symbolic, but neither do I believe the elements are transformed in any way, nor do I believe the act itself is a means of grace. Neither of the passages you have quoted go anywhere near proving these two things - the fact that the Jews apparently though he was speaking literally is not any different to when the disciples hear Jesus talk about the yeast of the Pharisees and mistakenly think he's criticising them for forgetting to bring bread. The biggest problem I usually see with the RCC interpretation of this verse in order to prove their view of the Eucharist is that they have to ignore all the other times various people (usually the disciples themselves) interpret things literalistically and get it wrong, and so have to assume that not only is that interpretation correct this one time, but that it is the Phariseees of all people who got it right.
Also, to take that interpretation actually reverses the tenor of the language Jesus uses. Jesus whole point is that Moses gave manna to the people, but that Jesus is the true bread. HE is the bread of life. To argue that the chief point of the passage is in fact that the Mass is the true bread because it becomes the flesh of Jesus is kind of the reverse of the metaphor - the whole fact of him saying that he is a bread with whom one will never get hungry becomes a little nonsensical if we conclude he is talking about transubstantive Eucharistic elements - should we concluce you have not been hungry since your first Eucharist?
You're increasingly becoming erratic in replies. You actually ignored my post and simply started repeating the very material THAT MY REPLY WAS DIRECTED TO.
AGAIN: The church fathers universally relied on Scripture to substantiate their point, and rarely will you find any teaching of significance that they rely TOTALLY on oral authority for without reference to the Scriptures. You have yet to address this AT ALL.
You clearly do not understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not teach that you can never refer to any idea outside the Scripture. If you had ever bothered to read anything of Calvin or Luther (you clearly haven't), you would know this.
Here, for example, is a part of Calvin's view of the relationship of Scripture and the church. I'll quote it at length, basically because people like your self strawman what the Reformers argue like this all the time, and frankly I'm over it:
"I am not arguing here either that all councils are to be condemned or the acts of all to be rescinded, and (as the saying goes) to be canceled at one stroke. But, you will say, you degrade everything so that every man has the right to accept or reject what the councils decide. Not at all! But whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I should like men first of all diligently to ponder at what time it was held, on what issue, and with what intention, what sort of men were present; then to examine by the standard of Scripture what it dealt with - and to do this in such a way that the definition of the council may have its weight and be like a provisional judgement, yet not hinder the examination I have mention…
"Thus, councils would come to have the majesty that is their due; yet in the meantime Scripture would stand out in the higher place, with everything subject to its standard. In this way we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors in so far as they relate to the teachings of the faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen." [Calvin, J., 'The Institutes of the Christian Religion', IV, ix, 8]
And, again, I have trouble even understanding what you're saying here. No one is saying that the Reformation was the beginning of the church. The Reformation was an attempt to reform the Church BACK TO the early church. The church has not failed - no is saying it has. But the church is more than just Rome.
Last edited:
