![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/Cover-551x832.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[Chapter Six from my book,\u00a0Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(Feb. 2011) ]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n St. Paul wrote that those taking the bread and cup \u201cin an unworthy manner\u201d were \u201cguilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 1 Cor 10:14-22). Does he \u201cneed\u201d the Aristotelian philosophy of substance and accidents to know this? No. He doesn\u2019t even need Stoic or Epicurean or Platonic philosophy. He doesn\u2019t need any philosophy at all<\/em>. All he needs is Jewish realism, just as when he was converted, Jesus told him he was persecuting Him <\/em>(Acts 9:3-6). Paul was persecuting the Church <\/em>(Acts 8:3).<\/p>\n The Church is <\/em>the Body of Christ, in this incarnational, sacramental, biblical way of thinking. It is Jewish realism and historicism taken to another spiritual level. John 6 and the Last Supper accounts, as well as Paul\u2019s literalism above, make eucharistic realism quite easily ascertained, which is why no one of note denied the doctrine until the Protestant Zwingli in the 16th<\/sup> century. Even Luther left it untouched and damned to hell all those who denied it. The fathers unanimously took the literal view of the Eucharist.<\/p>\n Nothing in Paul\u2019s discussion of the Eucharist goes against a straightforward literal interpretation. If I referred to \u201cthe body and blood of Dave Armstrong,\u201d people would know exactly what that meant. If I complained that \u201cmy body aches today,\u201d no one would take that merely symbolically or \u201cspiritually\u201d or \u201cmystically.\u201d If I mentioned that \u201cI gave blood at the Red Cross\u201d I dare say that not a single person would think I was only speaking allegorically. Yet when Jesus says, \u201cThis is My Body\u201d and \u201cThis is My Blood\u201d at the Last Supper, all of a sudden many people think it is a spiritual, non-physical, symbolic meaning only.<\/p>\n The Last Supper was an observance of the Jewish Passover. The sacrifice of the lamb (Jesus) \u2014 following Jewish ritual and ceremonial practices \u2014 was quite real. That wasn\u2019t symbolic. Yet Jesus\u2019 Body and Blood are reduced to mere symbols. Why should symbol be more impressive or \u201cspiritual\u201d than physical, concrete reality? I think the tendency to anti-sacramentalism in Protestantism is ultimately <\/em>(by logical reduction) anti-incarnational and a derivative of the antipathy to matter of ancient heresies such as the Docetics and Gnostics.<\/p>\n In any event, one can believe in the literal, substantial Eucharist without a whit of philosophical knowledge, just as one can believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation without the slightest knowledge of the hypostatic union, homoousios<\/em>, filioque<\/em>, kenosis<\/em>, etc. The puddle of Christianity (as the proverb goes) is shallow enough for a child to play in and deep enough for an elephant to drown in.<\/p>\n The central point isn\u2019t the philosophical categories, but that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Orthodox and the Lutherans are realists, too; they simply use different words and expressions. All agree that it is ultimately a great mystery. We merely try to explain or comprehend it in a bit more detail.<\/p>\n Orthodox object to our alleged \u201chyper-rationalism,\u201d yet they get into quite technical detail also when they discuss the filioque<\/em>, the Divine Energies, and theosis<\/em>, or divinization. Excessive \u201crationalism,\u201d then, is often in the eye of the beholder.<\/p>\n Does anyone wish to contend that the Holy Eucharist can\u2019t be understood or believed at all without taking four philosophy courses: philosophy of language, epistemology, logic, and analytic philosophy? I deny it. I think many Protestant apologists are approaching this issue far too \u201cacademically\u201d or \u201cphilosophically\u201d.<\/p>\n The philosophy has been raised to too high a level once again, usurping the place of faith and common sense. And we Catholics stand by common sense. To wax somewhat \u201cChestertonian\u201d: Common sense is far better than un<\/em>common lack <\/em>of sense.<\/p>\n Catholic sacramentalism and incarnational theology maintain that the symbol or sign is also a reality. The separation whereby all symbols are opposed to realism, is what we oppose. Jesus compared His Resurrection to the \u201csign of Jonah.\u201d But it was literal. Augustine could speak of the Eucharist as both a sign and a physical reality. The two are not mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n We must not yield up such a fundamental doctrine and rite of Christianity to relativism and \u201cdiversity.\u201d It\u2019s clear enough what the Church believed through the centuries on this, without a necessity for Aristotelianism to be brought into the discussion.<\/p>\n If we were to observe Jesus as a fetus, would we be able to ascertain that He had come about in a way other than the usual natural meeting of sperm and egg? Could we prove <\/em>that the burning bush was somehow to be equated with the Creator of the Universe? How would someone falsify the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?<\/p>\n How could someone prove that the atonement and redemption of all mankind is occurring by observing an itinerant preacher being put to death on a cross: just one of many thousands who endured the same horrible end at the hands of the Romans? How is that falsifiable? One can\u2019t prove that the water used in baptism has power by taking it immediately off the head of a baby and analyzing it chemically.<\/p>\n Christianity is an empirical, concrete, practical religion. But it is not always. The foundational doctrines of Christianity cannot be proven empirically. How does one prove that Christ redeemed the world? How can the Holy Trinity itself be either proven or falsified, apart from revelation and faith? Such skepticism about the Eucharist would also exclude the atonement, the incarnation, the virgin birth, etc. (by placing them in the same \u201cabsurd\u201d category \u2014 qua <\/em>miracles \u2014 as transubstantiation). Yet some seem to deny that the Eucharist is a mystery at all.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [Chapter Six from my book,\u00a0Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology\u00a0(Feb. 2011) ] ***** St. Paul wrote that those taking the bread and cup \u201cin an unworthy manner\u201d were \u201cguilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 1 Cor 10:14-22). Does he \u201cneed\u201d the Aristotelian philosophy of substance and accidents to know […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":43584,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[416,595,599,5917,1463,364,2527,384,425,2531,2337,385],"class_list":["post-43578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eucharist-liturgy","tag-catholic-mass","tag-consecration","tag-eucharist","tag-eucharist-incarnation","tag-eucharistic-theology","tag-holy-eucharist","tag-passion-of-christ","tag-real-presence","tag-the-cross","tag-the-crucifixion","tag-the-mass","tag-transubstantiation"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Eucharist, Incarnation, and Reason: Reflections<\/a>\u00a0[1994]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\nTransubstantiation: A Philosophical & Rational Defense<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cIs This God?\u201d (Treatise on the Eucharist)<\/a>\u00a0[January 2000]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn Calvin\u2019s Erroneous Mystical View of the Eucharist<\/a>\u00a0[4-9-04, 9-7-05, abridged and re-edited on 11-30-17]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nAnswers for Protestant Eucharist Questions<\/a>\u00a0[7-18-07]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHoly Eucharist: Replies to\u00a0a Protestant Inquirer<\/a>\u00a0[5-29-08]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nEucharist: Physical, Symbolic, or \u201cMystical\u201d? (vs. Calvin #41)<\/a>\u00a0[11-24-09]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTransubstantiation: Bible & the Fathers (vs. Calvin #42)<\/a>\u00a0[24-25 November 2009]
\n*<\/div>\n\nEucharist: Rationalism, Nestorianism, & Docetism (vs. Calvin #44)<\/a>\u00a0[11-30-09]
\n*<\/div>\nEucharist: Incoherent \u201cSpiritual Presence\u201d (vs. Calvin #46)<\/a>\u00a0[12-2-09]
\n*<\/div>\nEucharist: Radical Symbolism & Docetism (vs. Calvin #48)<\/a>\u00a0[12-3-09]
\n*<\/div>\n\nVs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism?<\/a>\u00a0[9-20-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"