"Historical Christianity"

Just a debate with a Catholic:

I think they [the Jews in John 6] could have thought of cannibalism, but that only indicates that they took his words seriously! And I think we should too. Where the Jews make a mistake is that partaking in the Eucharist, which as you have mentioned was not instituted at the time of the bread of life discourse but came later, is not partaking in cannibalism but in partaking in living flesh and blood, not of the dead. To reiterate, the reaction of the crowd supports the literal reading of Jesus’s Words.

1. Jesus explained: "the flesh counts for nothing" or "the flesh is no help at all" (Jn 6:63b). So if one takes these words literally, as in literal flesh and literal blood, then they've missed Jesus' point. Jesus' point is: "It is the Spirit who gives life...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63a,c). It's Jesus' "words" that give life (cf. Jn 5:24). And this has precedence in the OT as well. For example, Jer 15:16 and Ezk 2:8–3:3:

Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart.

and

"But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. And he spread it before me. And it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat whatever you find here. Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and he gave me this scroll to eat. And he said to me, "Son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey.

2. Why is living vs. dead the relevant distinction in what does or does not constitute cannibalism? Cannibalism is simply eating literal human flesh, dead or alive. Not to mention drinking literal human blood (e.g. clinical vampirism or Renfield syndrome). Besides, there have been cannibals who have eaten the flesh of living people (e.g. Armin Meiwes and his victim). Suppose a cannibal could feast upon a victim who could remain alive forever and who could regenerate flesh indefinitely. Why wouldn't it still be cannibalism?

Here is How St. Irenaeus Understood the Eucharist

1. Irenaeus wasn't divinely inspired. He used his own reasoning to arrive at his interpretation. Likewise anyone can use their own reasoning to arrive at a particular interpretation. Of course, we'd have to evaluate each interpretation on its own merits or lack thereof to decide which (if any) interpretation is correct. This is done through our God-given cognitive faculties. Logic, reason, critical thinking, analysis, and the like. In this respect, Irenaeus' interpretation is not necessarily to be preferred over a modern biblical scholar's. It comes down to what's the more reasonable interpretation of the biblical text.

2. There were theological errors even in Jesus and his first disciples' own day (e.g. Gnostics, Judaizers). Just because an understanding or teaching is earlier than other teachings doesn't necessarily imply it's true or more true.

3. At best, Irenaeus knew people who knew the apostles (e.g. Polycarp). However, knowing someone who knew an apostle doesn't necessarily mean one's interpretation is correct or even should be preferred. It'd be like saying I knew someone who knew Einstein, but that doesn't necessarily mean people should put more weight on my understanding of special and general relativity than someone else's simply because I knew someone who knew Einstein.

So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

1. At best, what Irenaeus says might be consistent with a spiritual presence, but that still falls short of Catholic transubstantiation.

2. Irenaeus himself may not have believed it's literal or actual flesh and blood. See Irenaeus' Fragments 13.

I am not manufacturing consensus. Consensus is a fact. I only exclude Protestants as they are not part of Early Church History. Remember, my original claim is if you study Church History you would cease to be Protestant. Imbedded in this claim is that if you study Church history, you would rightly exclude the Protestant position as being ahistorical, illogical, and against the text. But again, this is only AFTER having studied history.

1. Not that I would grant Protestantism is "ahistorical", but an ideological movement can be "ahistorical" without it being "illogical" or "against the text". These are separable arguments.

2. History is no accurate guide to truth. Minimally history is a catalogue of what happened in the past. However that could include all sorts of heresies as well (e.g. Gnostics, Arians, Unitarians, Nestorians).

3. How does one adjudicate what should or shouldn't count as "historical Christianity"? Scripture? Catholic bishops and councils? The Roman Catholic church which according to Catholics gave us the Bible?

4. Catholicism itself has morphed and evolved over the ages. For instance, see Steve's post "Rome's clouded crystal ball".

5. Ultimately I'd opt for biblical Christianity over "historical Christianity". Of course this would get us into a debate over sola scriptura. But my only point at the moment is that "historical Christianity" is hardly the only way to frame the debate. Your idea of "historical Christianity" is at least as debatable or contestable as sola scriptura.

You obviously did not come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking symbolically on your own. You were taught this by someone and came to accept it. This is no different than how any of our beliefs are formed. The difference between a Protestant and a Historical Christian is that, I believe, we rightly include the gamut of Church history, especially those most instrumental in the formation of the Church when forming our opinions. I would say the Protestants are more weakly formed by relying on individuals from the 16th and 17th century and took it upon themselves to “reinterpret” the Bible. This “reinterpretation” is basically what this entire thread boils down to. I think if someone is honest and reviews the record, the Historical Christian view is correct, and the Protestant view is incorrect.

1. I came to my conclusions about John 6 primarily by studying the biblical text, studying scholarly works including commentaries on the text, comparing my understanding to theirs, drawing my own conclusions.

2. Sure, it's possible to be "taught" something by someone else, but at the same time it's possible to use one's own logic and reasoning, ask relevant questions, and so forth to see if what's been taught comports with sound reason. These aren't necessarily at odds with one another.

3. Contemporary Protestants don't "rely on individuals from the 16th and 17th century" as if these individuals are our sole or primary reasons we believe what we believe. The exegetical and theological bases for arguments about the eucharist (to take an example) have been refined and developed over the centuries.

4. For that matter, what if Protestants made the same allegation about Catholics. That is, suppose we said Catholics rely on Trent in the same manner. Yet, if so, why is Vatican II so different from Trent?