09/15/2018 “Is This God?” The Eucharist (Treatise on the Eucharist) (Part 2)
Dave Armstrong
Envoy Magazine
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/is-this-god-treatise-on-the-eucharist.htmlFor example, Jesus refers to the “sign of Jonah,” comparing Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish to His own burial.
Mt 12:38-40
In other words, both events, although described as “signs,” were literally real events. Jesus also uses the same terminology in connection with His Second Coming.
Mt 24:30-31
Which is, of course, believed by all Christians to be a literal, not a symbolic occurrence.
J.N.D. Kelly, a highly-respected Protestant scholar of early Church doctrine and development, writing about patristic views in the fourth and fifth centuries, concurs.
It must not be supposed, of course, that this ‘symbolical’ language implied that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to, or tokens of, absent realities.
Rather were they accepted as signs of realities which were somehow actually present though apprehended by faith alone.
Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, 1978, San Francisco: Harper Collins, 442
About St. Augustine in particular, Kelly concludes:
. . . There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism . . .
One could multiply texts . . . which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood.
There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors.
Ibid., 446-447
Likewise, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church makes the same point about allusions to “symbolism” with regard to the general teaching of the Church Fathers:
Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts.
Ibid., 475
Zwingli gets down to brass tacks in the following blast against Catholic eucharistic doctrine.
And it is here where I believe we begin to clearly see the philosophical and skeptical roots of his false belief:
The manna which came down from heaven was of the same size and shape as coriander seed, but its taste was quite different.
Here the case is otherwise, for what we see and what we taste are exactly the same, bread and wine.
And how can we say that it is flesh when we do not perceive it to be such?
If the body were there miraculously, the bread would not be bread, but we should perceive it to be flesh.
Since, however, we see and perceive bread, it is evident that we are ascribing to God a miracle which he himself neither wills nor approves.
For he does not work miracles which cannot be perceived.
in Bromiley, ibid., p.196
I answer Zwingli as follows:
The Eucharist was intended by God as a different kind of miracle from the outset, requiring more profound faith, as opposed to the “proof” of tangible, empirical miracles.
But in this it was certainly not unique among Christian doctrines and traditional beliefs – many fully shared by our Protestant brethren.
The Virgin Birth, for example, cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort.
Likewise, in the Atonement of Jesus the world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross.
The Christian, on the other hand, sees there the great miracle of Redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind.
An unspeakably sublime miracle, yet who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it?
In fact, the disciples (with the possible exception of St. John, the only one present) didn’t even know what was happening at the time.
Baptism, according to most Christians, imparts real grace of some sort to those who receive it.
But this is rarely evident or tangible, especially in infants.
Lastly, the Incarnation itself was not able to be perceived as an outward miracle, though it might be considered the most incredible miracle ever.
Jesus appeared as a man like any other man.
He ate, drank, slept, had to wash, experienced emotion, suffered, etc.
He performed miracles and foretold the future, and ultimately raised Himself from the dead, and ascended into heaven in full view, but the Incarnation.
Strictly viewed in and of itself, was not visible or manifest in the tangible, concrete way to which Herr Zwingli seems to foolishly think God would or must restrict Himself.
To summarize, Jesus looked, felt, and sounded like a man; no one but those possessing faith would know (from simply observing Him).
That He was also God, an uncreated Person who had made everything upon which He stood, who was the Sovereign and Judge of every man with whom He came in contact (and also of those He never met).
Therefore, Zwingli’s argument proves too much and must be rejected. If the Eucharist is abolished by this supposed “biblical reasoning,” then the Incarnation (and by implication, the Trinity) must be discarded along with it.
Besides all that, did not Jesus habitually call us on to a more sublime faith?
For instance, in Matthew.
12:38-39
Jesus had one of His frequent run-ins with the Pharisees, who requested of Him:
Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’
But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’
cf. Matthew 16:1-4, Luke 11:29-30, John 2:18-22
(Note) that He does implicitly appeal to the sign of His Resurrection, but look how He regards the seeking of signs!
see also Mark 8:11-12
In fact, in the eucharistic passage of John 6 our Lord Jesus seems to emphasize the same point by the thrust of His dialogue.
He mentions “signs” in 6:26 in reference to the feeding of the five thousand the previous day, but then when they ask Him for a “sign.”
6:30
He spurs them on to the more profound faith required with regard to the eucharistic miracle.
Furthermore, we have the example of Doubting Thomas.
John 20:24-29
Jesus appeared to Thomas, after His Resurrection, apparently for the express purpose of demonstrating graphically to him that He was raised from the dead.
But then what does He say?
Have you believed because you have seen me?
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.
Signs, wonders, and miracles (that is, in the empirical, outward sense which Zwingli demands for the Eucharist) do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:
. . . If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
Luke 16:31
For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles……
For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
1 Corinthians 1:22-23,25
Likewise, when He was explaining the Eucharist, Jesus said.
Does this offend you?. . . among you there are some who do not believe . . .
(John 6:61,64)
This is why Jesus merely reiterated His teaching in.
John 6
In ever-more forceful terms, rather than explain it in a different way, or reveal the meaning of the alleged symbolic language, as many Protestants would have it.
He repeated it because He knew that the problem was flat-out unbelief, not lack of comprehension.
The Eucharist is no less “foolish” than Christ crucified.
People will disbelieve both because they are difficult to grasp with the natural mind, whereas the mind of faith can see and believe them.
Romano Guardini, the great Catholic writer, stated about.
John 6
Should they have understood? Hardly.
It is inconceivable that at any time anyone could have grasped intellectually the meaning of these words.
But they should have believed.
They should have clung to Christ blindly, wherever he led them . . . and simply said.
We do not understand; show us what you mean.
Instead they judge, andmeverything closes to them.
The Lord, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954, p.206
Jesus could walk through walls after His Resurrection.
John 20:26
And even a mere man, Philip, could be “caught away” and transported to another place by God.
Acts 8:39-40
So Zwingli, and Protestants who follow his reasoning, think God “couldn’t” or “wouldn’t” have performed the miracle of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation (which means, literally, “change of substance”)?
I don’t find this line of thought convincing in the least, and no one should rashly attempt to “tie” God’s hands by such arguments of alleged implausibility.
The fact remains that God clearly can perform any miracle He so chooses.
Many Christian beliefs require a great deal of faith, even relatively “blind” faith.
Protestants manage to believe in a number of such doctrines (such as the Trinity, God’s eternal existence, omnipotence, angels, the power of prayer, instantaneous justification, the Second Coming, etc.).
(End Part 2)