Scott Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper"

I don't know what else to say

Thank You, Jesus, for showing Jason the Real Presence.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
Hi guys,
But anyway, I just wanted to share that I've been studying the greek word 'parousia' in terms of experiencing God's presence (which I guess is what you guys refer to as the 'Real Presence').

Click to expand...

Hello Jason, "parousia" is the "final ousia", or the "final mass" or "Christ-mass" at the turning point of our life. Parousia is followed by metanoia when whe have reached the end of our world and turn back to go the other way. The word is borrowed from Greek to signify the second coming of Christ in our life in a very special way.

An ousia is an eidetic image and the parousia is the final image when "all will be made clear." It is when we sell/surrender all of our eiditic images (we should have 12) to find the one pearl of great worth.

I've finally got MIL's copy, and will be reading it soon. Hope to compare notes with ya!

Contented streams of joy!

I've always wondered how Protestants can believe that God was present in the smoke and flame that guided the Israelites during the Exodus, and at the same time claim that Jesus cannot *possibly* be present in the Eucharist.

Glad to see that someone made the connection! Let us pray (as Corpus Christi Thursday is fast approaching!) that more will discover the gift of the Eucharist and be filled with it's grace and truth!

Father Rob
Anglican Catholic and Proud of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist!

As a Protestant and having read Scott Hahn, I can tell you that it is one thing to understand how God is in the smoke and fire and how Jesus is "in the midst of us" by His Holy Spirit, and quite another thing to say we are eating Jesus' literal flesh and literal blood.

If there is one Jesus and He is indeed flesh and blood sitting at the right hand of God, which I think we all believe, then His physical return to earth is a ONE TIME physical event. He is not here physically in the flesh and there physically in the flesh at the same time, He is one place at one time. And the scripture teaches that place is seated at the right hand of God.

You are counting on the literal meaning of Jesus' words:

JOH 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
JOH 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
JOH 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jesus also said:

JOH 10:9 I am the door...

JOH 10:14 I am the good shepherd...

JOH 9:5 ...I am the light of the world.

JOH 15:1 I am the true vine...

JOH 15:5 I am the vine...

REV 22:16 ...I am the..bright and morning star.

JOH 6:35 ...I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Should we take these verses literally too?

I mean is Jesus a door, an actual shepherd, a light, a vine, a star? How come I still get hungry and thirsty after believing in Him?

The bible gives us the answer:

MAT 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

After Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood the Jews said:

JOH 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JOH 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

But Jesus answered them and said He didn't mean physically but SPIRITUALLY!!!!

JOH 6:61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

JOH 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Christ is saying it's not my flesh that profits you but my Holy Spirit, the words I have spoken to you are spiritual!!!! Not literal!!!

To Evan:

If indeed Jesus was talking about symbolism, WHY did He allow those disciples to leave, when they thought He was discussing actual cannibalism? Did He run after them? Did He flag them down, saying, "Wait, wait, I'm going to explain this further!"

He let them go.

Then he turned to the Twelve and said, "Are you going to leave Me too?"

In all those other quotes you gave, when Jesus compared himself to inanimate objects, He clearly said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine," or "I am the shepherd." How many times did He mention being an inanimate object in each discourse? Once? Maybe twice? In the Bread of Life discourse, by my count, Jesus said, "Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood" at least SIX times. And He didn't say, "My Flesh is bread, My Blood is wine." He used literal words to say, "GNAW," or "CHEW," he was discussing the physical act of eating. "My Flesh is true food, My Blood is true drink."

There is a WORLD of difference in the sentence structure, the intent, and the meaning between the Bread of Life discourse and any other parable of Jesus.

Further, at the Last Supper, He said, "Eat, THIS IS MY BODY." He didn't say, "I am the bread." Nor did He say, "This bread represents My Body."

"THIS is My Body."

"THIS is My Blood, which will be shed for the forgiveness of sins."

And the very next day, He bleeds. He dies.

And I am positive, if you re-read Scott Hahn, he makes this point over and over and over.

It's hard to understand. Hard to believe. Many LEFT Jesus because He talked about EATING HIS FLESH and DRINKING HIS BLOOD. His Twelve Disciples were just as confused as the rest, but Peter spoke up and said, "Master where will we go? You have the words of Eternal Life."

Amen.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Evan:

The Death and Resurrection of our Lord is an event that stands outside of time. So, yes, He is sitting at the right hand of the Father right now, but He is also very present to us when we are taking the Eucharist because the sacrificial act is transcendant of all time.

Thank you for allowing me to comment again. What a nice group!

I think Scott Hahn is wrong here.

Why would Jesus begin talking about flesh at this point in His discussion except to provide commentary on what he had just been talking about earlier, that is His flesh.

JOH 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the FLESH profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

His flesh profits nothing! It is the Spirit who gives life. His words about His flesh, that He had just spoken to them about He says, are spiritual not physical.

Many would walk with Him no more because they really thought He meant His flesh. But He spoke in parables.There were many times Jesus would not reveal His parables. He said the reason He would not clarify His parables was because God did not intend for them to come to Christ.

JOH 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

The Father had to grant them to come to Christ, and this was not happening.

LUK 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Here God actually hides the Gospel from people. He makes no attempt to run after them saying....hold on, wait a minute....you just don't understand...WAITTTT! No, instead Jesus says (look at the verse) He hides it from them!

MAT 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Hmmmm...to us it has been given, but to them it has not been given.

That's why Jesus did not run after them saying....wait, wait...! Pls let me just eaxplain a little longer. It was not granted for them by God to come to Him;

JOH 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father ."

Guys... I am watching this closely as it resembles a debate rather than a "Q&A" session.

Someone let me know if this gets out of hand, Otherwise proceed with the discussion.

To Evan:

There is a natural break in the Bread of Life Discourse at verse 59: "These things he said while teaching at the synagogue in Capernaum.

The next segment in John, Chapter Six, is subtitled "Words of Eternal Life." While Jesus is still talking about Eternal Life, it is a separate conversation from the one where He tells his Disciples they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

The segment where Jesus talks about being the Bread of Life is contained in its entirety between verses 47 through 58. Within those 12 verses, he mentions SIX TIMES that they must eat His flesh, drink His blood.

Scott Hahn was an ordained Protestant minister before he converted to the Catholic faith. His research behind "The Lamb's Supper" was conducted mostly while he was studying for the Protestant ministry. It was during this time he found inconsistencies in the teaching, and he was compelled to dig deeper. He didn't find satisfactory answers to his questions until he studied the Catholic faith.

Scott Hahn's discoveries, while very personal to him, are not his alone. Independently of the Catholic Church, he merely uncovered the teachings that the Church has presented for 2000 years.

You of course, are under no obligation to agree with any of this. If it is your belief that Communion is meant to be a symbolic gesture only, that is your prerogative.

However, the viewpoints presented by Scott Hahn coincide with the understanding of the Early Church, and also what the Catholic Church has taught and believed for 2000 years.



Peace be with you,
~VOW

I have been reading Scott Hahn because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism. I have carefully followed his ideas and debates. I have also followed the conversion of Roman Catholics to Protestantism and read their ideas.

Why I am entered this thread was because it was discussing Scott Hahn.

I think Hahn agrees that those of the eary church who gave a literal meaning include: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose. Those who gave a figurative meaning include Pope Gelasius I, Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine.

Augustine said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Since the bread is the remembrance of his body, it is not his literal body that was crucified on the cross. Otherwise it would not be a remembrance. Elsewhere Augustine explains, "You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who will crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament" (Exposition on the Psalms, XCIX). Clearly Augustine did not believe that the bread of the Eucharist is the same body as that indwelt by Christ.

I believe it is Hahn's position that the Augustine understanding began to change in the Middle Ages, and not before. Pelikan's discussion of this topic is invaluable. It was Paschasius Radbertus (c. 785 - c. 860) who first outlined the doctrine of transubstantiation -- the idea that the bread and cup are indeed transformed, literally and physically, into the body and blood of the Lord. In this case the authority of Augustine was overthrown and a new doctrine was set up.

Radbertus was opposed in writing by a monk of his own monastery, Ratramnus (died c. 868), who advocated strongly a doctrine of symbolic transformation of the elements. The transformation, which Ratramnus agreed was performed by the clergy in the consecration of the elements, was perceived only by faith and only by the faithful. It was not a physical, literal transubstantiation.

Pope Gelasius also refuted transubstantiation and calls the bread and wine 'images' and 'the similitude' of the body of Christ. "…the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius).

There was a great controversy in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages about the meaning of the Eucharistic elements. Transubstantiation finally was promulgated as dogma of the Roman Church during the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. That shows that the present Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist was not held by everyone or a majority in the early church.

Hahn then comes to the conclusion everyone must decide for themselves on scripture alone (this must be the Protestant coming out of him).

Do you think Hahn is right in these conclusions of the early church? And should we look to scripture alone on this issue?

To Evan:

Transubstantiation was EXPLAINED 1215, but not invented then.

Catholics believe in Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the ORAL teachings of the Apostles, and ceased to be created once the last Apostle died. These teachings were also passed along in oral form; through the years they have been put to paper, most of them are found in the Early Church Fathers' writings.

The Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together form the Original Deposit of Faith. The Church is the caretaker of this. As such, the Church may EXPLAIN a dogma or doctrine, but it cannot change or invent one.

To fully understand the concept of transubstantiation, you must also understand Apostolic Succession. It is through the authority of Apostolic Succession that the priesthood has the ability to preside over the Eucharist at Mass and serve in place of Jesus. When the Bread and Wine are elevated, as the priest says, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," that is when the miracle occurs.

The teachings AGAINST transubstantiation began at the breaking away of the Anglican Church and of course, at Luther's Protestation. These two churches teach something similar, "consubstantiation," whereby the Bread and the Wine become the Body and Blood, NOT by the hands of the priest, but when the elements are received by the congregation. The further branching away that the different denominations have done, the more distant they placed themselves from the Catholic Church, and the more they became separated from the Apostolic Succession, they taught Communion to be symbolic only.

There have been numerous, numerous references in the Early Church Fathers to validate the TEACHING of transubstantiation, if not the word itself. I haven't done the research on my own, so I can't verify one way or another the references you cite; for now, what I do know is what my Church has taught.

Another angle to consider is that the Last Supper was the Jewish Seder meal. In the original Passover, in Egypt, the Jews were to slaughter a perfect, unblemished lamb, and use the blood to mark the doorposts of their homes. They then roasted and ate the meat of the lamb as part of their hastily prepared meal before they fled the Pharaoh. The Jews were commanded by God to remember this meal annually.

The Christian communion does not include the slaughtered lamb. Our Lamb is the Lamb of God, Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice. We cannot eat His flesh, so He gave it to us to eat, by proclaiming the Bread to be His Flesh. And we drink His Blood, in order to mark our hearts, so that the Angel of Death will pass over us, too. The Jews didn't use anything symbolically to mark their doorframes, and Catholics don't either; we drink the Wine which Jesus has miraculously claimed to be His Blood.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by VOW
To fully understand the concept of transubstantiation, you must also understand Apostolic Succession. It is through the authority of Apostolic Succession that the priesthood has the ability to preside over the Eucharist at Mass and serve in place of Jesus. When the Bread and Wine are elevated, as the priest says, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," that is when the miracle occurs.

The teachings AGAINST transubstantiation began at the breaking away of the Anglican Church and of course, at Luther's Protestation. These two churches teach something similar, "consubstantiation," whereby the Bread and the Wine become the Body and Blood, NOT by the hands of the priest, but when the elements are received by the congregation.
~VOW

Click to expand...

In defence of the Anglican Faith, I feel a need to make a correction. First, it is not the universal faith even in the Roman Church that the dominical words effect the change. In the Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome, it is the Epiklesis that follows the words, together with the assent of the Congregation that allows the presence to be manifest. The Latin form has become fond of the words of institution, but it is by no means universal.

Second, the Anglican faith does not reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but indeed demands an assent to that fact in her own liturgy. For example:

FROM THE 1549 ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
Hear us, O Merciful Father, we beseech thee; and with thy Holy Spirit and Word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ. Who, in the same night. . .

No question here.

FROM THE 1789, 1892, and 1928 AMERICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
INTRODUCTORY DIALOUGE, WORDS OF INSTIUTION, THE OBLATION, then:
And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son of Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in rememberance of his passion and death, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

While this revision often takes a hit as the "receptionist view" of the Anglican Church, it is not. The prayer is that as we receive these gifts in accordance with the Eucharistic mystery as instituted by Christ, we will receive his Body and Blood.

FROM THE 1929 SCOTTISH and 2001 PRIMITIVE EPISCOPAL BCP:
INTRODUCTORY DIALOUGE, WORDS OF INSTITUTION, THE OBLATION then:
And we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, most merciful Father, to hear us, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his lifegiving power, they may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul and preserved unto everlasting life.

No question here.

The Anglican teaching, in accord with the Eastern tradition, is that no mere human terms can explain the depth and love of the Eucharistic mystery. Transubstantiation is a pre-christian philosophical terminology that was warped into a farced Christian use. Trans means change of course, but to the pre-Christian greeks, substance did not mean physical properties. Substance was the essence or "essential nature" of something. Thus, when the sacrament is properly consecrated by a Presbyter or Bishop in succession, the bread and wine's essence ceases to exist. It is still physically, atomically, the bread and wine. But in spirit and truth it is the Body and Blood of Christ. The Sacrament brings us to the foot of Calvary, and also to the throne of HEaven. . . to partake of Christ crucified for our sins and risen for our justification. Therefore, the Anglican Church does not worship and glorify any :corporeal: or transmuted physical presence, but indeed does worship in spirit and truth the presence of Christ in the sacrament *and* admits it may not have the exact answer correctly. Therefore, we say that whatever happens, it is exactly what he intended, even if we cannot explain it.

Again, this is the view of the Eastern Churches, both in and out of Communion with Rome, as well as the Anglican view.

Hope this helps. . . I so love our discussions here.

Pax,
Fr. Rob

Addendum to post-

Actually, you were describing receptionalisim in your post, not Consubstantiation. CS states that while the physical elements of bread and wine are present, so is the physical flesh and blood of Christ.

Receptionalisim states that the bread is simply common bread that is doled out to receivers, and that if the receiver is worthy then it suddenly becomes the body / blood. This is actually a Calvinist/Zwinglian doctrine (though neither Calvin or Zwingli held it in their lives).

Fr. Rob

Thank you, Fr Rob.

I had the jist of it, that the Lutheran, and of course, the Anglican were SIMILAR to the Latin Rite. And of course, together we believe that there is something present much more than mere symbology. And we believe that Jesus was indeed discussing His Actual Flesh and His Actual Blood in John 6, not merely another parable.

The Real Presence is a true Mystery. Amen.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Vow,

So you see that even Hahn agrees that the early church was divided on this issue with those of the eary church who gave a literal (Catholic)meaning including: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose. Those who gave a figurative (Protestant)meaning included Pope Gelasius I, Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine.

Hahn also agrees that the strongest theologians of this group were Augustine, Athanasius and Jerome all of whom sided with the Protestant wiew. I have even furnished you quotes from some these fathers that you can look up at your convienence.

But you and Hahn say oral tradition of the fathers is also the Word of God. Of course the obvious question then is which one's? Augustine or Cyril? Athanasius or Gregory of Nyssa? Jerome or Ambrose? etc. etc.

The Holy Spirit taught us through Paul as you agree:

2TH 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Paul says Christians can go to EITHER his letters or his word of mouth to get Christ's traditions and word. Because both contained the same thing. There were no traditions or words that were not in letters.

So Paul teaches either or, written or oral, it doesn't matter which....why?

Because they both contained the same thing.

If Paul had said word of mouth AND letters, then ok you and Hahn would have a point. But it is clear in this verse that Paul gives them the option using the word OR.

Now since the catholic church has revoked many of it's prior ex cathedra's, I will list them all if you like, there is no way to know what oral traditions are true and which were made up. Unless we examine them in light of one of the "OR'S" the Apostle Paul gave us, and that is his letters.

Why do you thing Hahn has missed this and is now in obvious disagreement with the early church fathers, Pope Gelasius I, Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine?

Do you think he is just believing the wrong church fathers this time, because before he believed the other church fathers?

To Evan:

REVOKED "ex cathedra"? Yes, a reference please.

There has always been "discussion" about Church teachings. You will always find opposing viewpoints. Once an official declaration is made, though, all opposition STOPS. Please note, some Early Church Fathers fell away from the Church, but that by no means negates the contribution they made when they were in line with Church teachings.

The conflict you have researched does point to one thing though: people are WRONG when they say the Catholic Church re-wrote history to suit its needs. If that were the case, you would find the writings to be identical, in a lock-step marching together through history.

When Paul made reference to word of mouth OR letters, he was obviously making the assumption there would be no contradiction. You are making a case FOR conflict, and Paul's word cannot be used to rectify it. In that event, we are told to turn to the Church, which will make a ruling, and that will satisfy the contradiction.

You've got two viewpoints on the Real Presence located on a see-saw. How do you resolve the bouncing around? You have the playground supervisor sit on one side.


Peace be with you,
~VOW