1 Corinthians 11:29-30

[Mike_Cooksey]

For the Protestant (without a valid priesthood) the eucharist is certainly a symbol and only a symbol. As such it has a level of value and the Holy Spirit surely uses that awareness.

For the Catholic (with a valid priesthood originating from the Christ at the last supper)… it is a symbol… and is the reality of Christ in person. Christ has verified it himself with the witness of His own power. For documentation, please refer to “Eucharistic Miracles” Tan Publishers

For the Catholic, the Eucharist can be worshiped as God Himself, because it is.

What a gift!!! And what a loss for those partially seperated from the truth of the Catholic faith.

May God unite His people.

 

[back2faith]

Forgive me for being so ignorant, but this is a discussion that I am having with friends of mine: Now my question. Are there ECF’s that state very plainly that the Eucharist is only a symbol? And wouldn’t it be a sin to claim the Lord is the Eucharist if he isn’t?

I’m not sure if this makes any sense, but I had to try
Thanks,
John

 

[SpiritualBeing]

janman55:

How about St Francis of Assisi, a little further down stream…

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
“His Words of Sacred Admonition
to all the Brothers”

In the 2nd paragraph:

“Whence all who saw the Lord Jesus according to the Humanity and both did not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that He Himself is the true Son of God, have been damned; so even now all who see the Sacrament, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the Altar by the hand of the Priest in the form of bread and wine, and does not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that this is truly the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, have been damned, since the Most High Himself testifies, who said: “This is My Body and My Blood of the new testament (which is poured forth for the many” (Mt. 14:22,24); and “He who eats My Flesh and drinks the Blood of the Lord.” All Others, who do not have according to this same spirit and presume to receive Him, eat and drink judgement upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29). Whence: “Sons of men, how long with a heavy heart?” (Ps 4:3) So that you may know the truth and believe in the Son of God (cf. John 9:35))”

St Francis of Assisi was a good man from the Lord. Not from himself, but from the Lord. From the Lord, means, from charity.

William

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

You claim that I have stacked the deck in pointing to the scriptures concerning the Eucharist. The deck was stacked by Jesus and the apostles and not by me. If you think my exegesis is somehow slanted than the same accusation can be leveled at you and your interpretation. Frankly, I think our position is significantly stronger than yours and we not only have scripture to back us up but we have history and the constant teaching of the Church.

You have made an attempt to discredit my contention concerning visible miracles. You cite the “effects” of baptism as the miraculous sign, but this fails to meet the criteria of a visible miracle itself. You originally claimed that the sign of the miracle must be manifest and you were not referring to the “effects” such as a change of heart. You cannot play with words to get out of the box you painted yourself into. The Eucharist also changes our hearts and brings us ever closer to Christ and enriches our relationship with God. Now that is also a miracle by your “new” standard and apparently that standard is also fulfilled.

 

[michaelgazin]

michaelgazin:

The problem with the 1 Cor. 11 passage from a symbolic point of view is back to the use of discernment. If the bread that Paul speaks of is merely a symbol, then how do we determine which bread is plain bread to eat (without the fear of having to discern Jesus), and which bread is to be viewed symbollically? Does bread become a symbol simply whenever the believer says it is (with the ability to bring sickness to those lacking proper discernment), or is it when someone else says it is?

So, which bread can I eat without worrying about becoming sick? Now, if the bread only becomes a symbol, with physical effects for abuse, whenever I declare it is (through remembering the Last Supper), it becomes completely illogical to warn of discernment. A person does not declare, “this bread here is a symbol of our Lord,” and then proceed to lack discernment regarding that personal declaration. If the bread becomes a symbol when the believer says so, discernment automatically follows. If the believer lacks discernment, then can that particular bread rightly be deemed a symbol, if the believer itself is the one who determines when the bread is a symbol and when it is just an ingredient in sandwich making?

That seems to create quite some logical inconsistency.

I have a loaf of Mrs. Baird’s bread on the counter right now (Texas Toast). Must I discern that it is a symbol of Jesus’ sacrifice when I eat the pb&j sandwich? What if I intentially take a slice of bread out with the intention of recalling the Last Supper and Christ’s sacrifice? Then must I discern that it is a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ? This is where the inconsistency lies. If my intention was to recall Christ’s sacrifice, then my discernment automatically follows, as it was my choice to partake of this communion at this time, and if my discernment was lacking, I would not eat it with the intention of recalling Christ’s sacrifice.

Or is it only when the congregation declares a particular supply of bread to be understood as a symbol of Christ? If I eat of bread that someone else declared to be understood as a symbol, without discerning the symbolism, *then *do I eat and drink judgement opon myself?

Protestants…can you clarify this ^^ a bit?

 

[Absalom]

sandusky:

Forgive me if my post sounded condescending, I thought that you did not understand that am and is are the same verb, which is very common these days, but you have shown me that I was wrong.

And a metaphor, no matter how it is phrased, is still a metaphor. And I believe that the H.S. knows what a metaphor is also, and that He uses them where He does for a reason. I believe that had He a literal understanding in mind, He would have had the writer record it that way.

Forgive me for snapping back. I admit that I got a little angry. A lesson in “to be” verbs didn’t sit well with me.

My point is that I do not believe “this is my body” and “eat my flesh and blood” are used as figurative language. I believe that Jesus was speaking literally in both of those cases (although both, mind you, contain an aspect of symbolism). The fact remains that the passover lamb was eaten in the Old Covenant and was ineffectual if it was *not *eaten. The fact also remains that what Jesus literally told the disciples was “You must *chew *my flesh . . .” As I pointed out earlier, if I were to say something dumb here (as, undoubtedly, you probably think I have! ), and I said “I chew my words . . .”, the effect of that figure of speech would be slightly ruined.

Finally, it is apparent to me that (from both of our points of view), we can argue about this subject for weeks and niether one of us will be changed. I remain unconvinced by your points, and you remain unconvinced by mine. However, if we all deem it necessary to continue to beat this dead horse, I’ll probably have to oblige (alas, I am weak!).

 

[edmondhall]

The constant teaching of the Church on this topic is clear and is not subject to the type of linguistic obfuscations that “interpreters” spin. In the end, Protestants have to make the case that God allowed the meaning of His Scriptures to be completely and utterly misunderstood for 1500 years by the Church Fathers, the saints etc and that it was not until Luther that the complete fallacy of the Church teaching on the Eucharist was finally revealed. “Boy”, I can hear Augustine, St. Francis, St. Thomas and all the rest saying as they look down from heaven, “weren’t we dumb!” “If only we’d have known how to conjugate ‘to be’”!

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

It sounds as though you have not experienced that transformation? If not, I would wonder why if I were you.

And baptism is not required for regeneration, but after one has repented, and believed.

Fortunately, I have experienced the regeneration promised by God through the Holy Spirit. Your statement about your perceptions of me clearly illustrate that in baptismal regeneration and faith there is no “visible” miracle such as seeing the clouds part, the presentation of the Shekina glory cloud, the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, or the clear and audible voice of God coming from heaven. Thank you for illustrating my point with your ad hominem comment.

As for baptism not being required for regeneration I hope you will consider the following:

In the OT we have a beautiful pre-figuring of baptism.

Ezk 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Compare this to ACTS 2:37-38

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Look carefully at the connections. In Ezekiel it says that I will sprinkle clean water upon you. In the NT we baptize with water. In Ezekiel it says that you will be cleansed from all your uncleanesses and in Acts is says that your sins will be forgiven. In Ezekiel God says he will remove our hearts of stone and put a new heart of flesh within us. In the Book of Acts it says that they were cut to the heart. In Ezekiel God says that He will put His spirit within you. In the book of Acts it says that we will recieve the Holy Spirit.

Also compare Ezekiel to Matthew 28:19-20 which says:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Similarly, God says in Ezekiel, “and*make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.”

There is no question that baptism brings with it regeneration and the following passages confirm this.

ACTS 19:1-7
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

JOHN 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 PETER 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

It is clear from scripture that baptism is an integral part of our regeneration in the Spirit. But again, even though this is true there is no outward visible miracle like that of Jesus walking on the water or a visible “transfiguration” of the baptized. Likewise the Eucharist does not have a visible “transfiguring” at the moment the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Moreover, there is no scriptural reason for that to be necessary.*

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

How do you know that? You are assuming that there was no change in her life, but you cannot know that for sure, because you have not known her personally.

The outward sign of sanctification is change. The outward sign of reception of the gifts of the Spirit is their use within the Body, and the manifestation of change should be seen in the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22ff)…

You are confusing the manifestation of a miracle and the outcome. This is not logical. We are told in scripture that, when Jesus turned the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, that this was the first of his signs. It was the first public miracle worked by Jesus. Clearly the manifest miracle was the changing of water into wine. The effect of this miracle was also told to us. In John 2:11 it says, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” Please note the manifest sign of the miracle of changing water into wine and the faith/change of heart of the disciples are not synonymous.

Baptism changes us. The Eucharist changes us. The laying on of hands changes us. In none of these cases do we actually “see” the change and in none of these cases is the “visible” manifestation necessary. The miraculous changes that take place within our hearts and souls are not accompanied by the external manifestations that I pointed to in my earlier posts.

I hope this helps.

 

[sandusky]

michaelgazin:

Protestants…can you clarify this ^^ a bit?

I’ve read this several times, and I am not sure what you are saying, or asking. Maybe if you restate it I’ll get your question.

 

[Absalom]

Here’s another question: Let’s say that Jesus *was *speaking symbolically when he said “This is my body” and such. If Jesus had wanted to say it literally, how would he have phrased it? “This bread is transubstantiated into my literal, physical, non-spiritual flesh”? And if you’re willing to make “This is my body and blood” a symbolic statement, there’s no way around somebody making any other equally concise statement into a symbol.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

You are confusing the manifestation of a miracle and the outcome. This is not logical. We are told in scripture that, when Jesus turned the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, that this was the first of his signs. It was the first public miracle worked by Jesus. Clearly the manifest miracle was the changing of water into wine. The effect of this miracle was also told to us. In John 2:11 it says, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” Please note the manifest sign of the miracle of changing water into wine and the faith/change of heart of the disciples are not synonymous.

Baptism changes us. The Eucharist changes us. The laying on of hands changes us. In none of these cases do we actually “see” the change and in none of these cases is the “visible” manifestation necessary. The miraculous changes that take place within our hearts and souls are not accompanied by the external manifestations that I pointed to in my earlier posts.

I hope this helps.

Pax, I should not have agreed with you that regeneration is a miracle. It is supernatural, but it is not a miracle. Miracles are distinguished by an intervention/intrusion/overriding of God into the natural order, and is witnessed by His people.

Scripture does not call the Eucharist a miracle, the RCC does, and also says that it is a miracle that is unobservable. Is that not a true statement?

Let’s prove it out. Read through the O.T. and list all of the miracles that occurred, with the qualification that no one saw them occur.

You will not find any such miracles. Why? Because a miracle is an observable phenomenon. It is not a spiritual act of God, it is God overruling physical/natural law.

Hope that helps you.

 

[sandusky]

Absalom!:

Here’s another question: Let’s say that Jesus *was *speaking symbolically when he said “This is my body” and such. If Jesus had wanted to say it literally, how would he have phrased it? “This bread is transubstantiated into my literal, physical, non-spiritual flesh”? And if you’re willing to make “This is my body and blood” a symbolic statement, there’s no way around somebody making any other equally concise statement into a symbol.

If the Lord said, “This is become my body.”

That is not a metaphor, but a statement of fact.

 

[edmondhall]

If the Lord said, “This is become my body.”

Person A hands someone a small box and says ‘this is my body’.
Person B hands someone a small box and says ‘this is become my body’.

I fail to see any difference in how the listener would respond (incredulity in each case,I suppose).

I also fail to see what difference it makes whether one refers to the Eucharist as a miracle or a supernatural act.

 

[michaelgazin]

sandusky:

I’ve read this several times, and I am not sure what you are saying, or asking. Maybe if you restate it I’ll get your question.

Well, obviously not all bread we eat should be treated with the reverance due to Christ. Some bread is simply bread and nothing more, and then other bread, according to Protestantism, is bread that symbolizes Christ and should be treated as such. How does one know whether a particular piece of bread should be revered as a symbol of Christ or should be treated as simply an ingredient in a pb&j sandwich?

 

[sandusky]

Michaelgazin:

Well, obviously not all bread we eat should be treated with the reverance due to Christ. Some bread is simply bread and nothing more, and then other bread, according to Protestantism, is bread that symbolizes Christ and should be treated as such. How does one know whether a particular piece of bread should be revered as a symbol of Christ or should be treated as simply an ingredient in a pb&j sandwich?

Ok.

I can’t speak for all “Protestants,” so I will speak for the church that I attend. It is evangelical, with a strong Reformed bent. Scripture only, saved by grace through faith; works are important, but not in any way salvific, or meritorious.

Our regular Sunday liturgy is simple: An opening prayer, congregational singing of hymns, with the choir; a reading from Scripture, usually from Psalms, but not always; more singing; a welcoming of any guests; and then a sermon. The whole worship service lasts for about 90 minutes, with the sermon accounting for the majority of that time, anywhere from 50 minutes to an hour.

Our pastor teaches/preaches through books of the Scripture. We are in Luke’s Gospel, in chapter 17, and have been so for the past 3 years. We are a large church, certainly not a mega church, and our pastor is well-known, if I mentioned his name you would probably know him, I have seen him mentioned occasionally on this forum.

Our communion liturgy is pretty much identical to our normal Sunday worship, with the exception that the last 15 minutes or so are devoted to the taking of bread and wine (we use grape juice).

We begin with the bread first. The bread is a small and unassuming with a cracker’s texture, about ½ inch long, and about ¼ inch in diameter. The bread is distributed among the congregation, with congregational singing, until everyone has their piece of bread, and then we partake of it together. The process of the wine repeats that of the bread, and we are finished.

As far as the bread being revered, why revere bread? The elements are not the focal point of the liturgy. Christ is. The elements cannot save us. Christ has.

 

[michaelgazin]

sandusky:

Our communion liturgy is pretty much identical to our normal Sunday worship, with the exception that the last 15 minutes or so are devoted to the taking of bread and wine (we use grape juice).

We begin with the bread first. The bread is a small and unassuming with a cracker’s texture, about ½ inch long, and about ¼ inch in diameter. The bread is distributed among the congregation, with congregational singing, until everyone has their piece of bread, and then we partake of it together. The process of the wine repeats that of the bread, and we are finished.

So it is this particular bread and wine, when consumed during the communion liturgy, that one must discern the body and blood of Jesus or else eat and drink judgement upon him/herself? What about that particular bread and wine, when consumed during the communion liturgy, make it a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus, as opposed to that same bread when consumed outside the communion liturgy?

As far as the bread being revered, why revere bread? The elements are not the focal point of the liturgy. Christ is. The elements cannot save us. Christ has.

Yea, you shouldn’t revere bread. I meant, in your situation, revering that which the bread symbolizes so as not to eat and drink judgement upon himself.

 

[RyanL]

Quite frankly, I’m amazed at the lack of scope of the discussion. As if the only verse we had to support the Eucharist was 1 Cor 11:29!

Let’s look at some other verses…
Melchizedek:

1. King of Salem (Genesis 14:18-20; Psalms 110:4)
2. A priest and type of Christ (Hebrews 5:6,10;6:20;7:1-21)
   Offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God. So revered that Abraham gave him a tithe offering. Christ is a priest in the order Melchizedek - He offers Himself as bread and wine, the ultimate sacrifice before God. Melchizedek was the King of Salem (from"Shalom", or “Peace”), prefiguring the true Prince of Peace. Later, Salem became Jerusalem, where Christ instituted His reign. Prophetically, Bethlahem comes from the Hebrew “House of Bread”, which is home to Christ.

Passover:

1. Institution of
   (Exodus 12:3-49;23:15-18;34:18; Leviticus 23:4-8; Numbers 9:2-5,)
2. The lamb killed by Levites, for those who were ceremonially unclean (2 Chronicles 30:17;35:3-11; Ezra 6:20)
3. Strangers authorized to celebrate (Exodus 12:48,49; Numbers 9:14) - prefigures Baptism as a requirement to partake in Eucharist
4. Observed at the place designated by God (Deuteronomy 16:5-7)
5. Observed with unleavened bread (no yeast) (Exodus 12:8,15-20;13:3,6;23:15; Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 9:11;)
6. Penalty for neglecting to observe (Numbers 9:13)
7. Re-instituted by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 45:21-24)
8. Observed by Jesus (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:15; John 2:13,23;)
9. Jesus in the temple courtyard at the time of (Luke 2:41-50)
10. Jesus crucified at the time of (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1,2; John 18:28)
11. The lamb of, a type of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)
12. The Eucharist ordained at (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20)
13. Prisoner released at, by the Romans (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:16,17; John 18:39)
14. Peter imprisoned at the time of (Acts 12:3)
15. Christ called “our Passover,” (1 Corinthians 5:7)

In order to have been ‘passed over’, you **had **to eat the lamb. Passover was commanded to be celebrated forever, which is done through the fulfillment of the Eucharist. Re-read Exodus 12! Christians who do not celebrate Passover (in this way or the old way) are disobeying the commands of God, and have never eaten the Lamb (thus have no biblical right to believe they will be “passed over”).

Cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

Cont’d…

Manna:

1. General scriptures concerning (Exodus 16:4-35; Numbers 11:6-10; Deuteronomy 8:3,16; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9)
2. Preserved in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 16:33; Hebrews 9:4)
3. Pre-figuring Christ ( John 6:48-51; 1 Corinthians 10:3; Revelations 2:17)

Christ is the true “Bread which comes down from heaven”, the “spiritual food” from which we are all to eat. As OT biblical types can only become greater in the NT, it would make no sense for the bread and wine to be “only symbolic”.

Eucharist:

1. General scriptures concerning institution (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 13:26;22:19,20; John)
2. Christ recognized in the Eucharist (Luke 24:30-31)
3. A “Pure Offering” sacrifice prophesied (Malachi 1:11)
4. Christ, our Sacrifice (Ephesians 5:2)
5. Christ, eternally present before God as a sacrifice (Revelation 5:5-7; Revelation 5:11-13)

The Eucharist is a partaking of and a participation in the eternal sacrifice of Christ, outside of time, but conjoined with time. Christ is ever-present before the Father as our Paschal Lamb, and He allows us to be partakers of His sacrifice.

**Not Figurative (“let Scripture interpret Scripture”):
**Micah 3:3Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

From CA:

“The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense”

Look it up. The only biblical use outside of the Eucharist is in line with the above quote. The Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura forces interpretation based on what else the Bible has to say about a certain topic. No other interpretation is allowed, as you cannot “read into” Scripture simply what you want to read. Under this doctrine, there is no other interpretation possible than the above quote.

Certainly, there is a symbolic aspect to the Eucharist. There is no reason, however, to assume that the symbolic aspect is either the main or only purpose behind the Eucharist. With over three dozen Aramaic words to mean “symbolizes” or “represents”, as well as several words to choose from in Greek, it is significant that our Lord chose NONE of these words to express Himself. There is precious little reason to believe that symbolism is what Christ meant.

Rather, a Clintonian distinction is attempted by the non-believing as to what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

Cont’d…

A few quotes from Dave Armstrong’s book “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” :

“Much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility toward the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter (which notion is the basis of sacramentalism). This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this concept is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved.”

As you already said, “If the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of being superior, it would really be inferior to the manna; for the manna was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a natural earthly food.”

“It sometimes happened, indeed, that our Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating His meaning in simpler language [Nicodemus - John 3:1-15; leaven of the Pharisees - Matt. 16:5-12]”

“Furthermore, according to the Greek in St. John’s account, Jesus, after the skeptical query by the Jews (6:53), actually switches terms for “eat.” At first John’s Greek word (nine times in John 6:23-53) is phago, a generic term for eat, used accordingly (literally) throughout the New Testament. But in John 6:54-58 the word used (four times) is the more graphic and particular trogo, which means literally “gnaws” or “chews,” as any Greek lexicon (such as Kittel or Thayer) will confirm. Trogo occurs only in this passage and in Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18. In those two verses, it conveys literal eating, and there are strong contextual, exegetical, and linguistic reasons to believe that it is intended literally in John 6 as well.”

(P.S., thanks to michaelgazin for the Armstrong material!)

God Bless,
RyanL