Communion is just a symbol!

[benhur]

Of course i do not believe this, but I want to put on my fundamentalist protestant hat and play objector for this thread.

My family and friends think it is just symbolic because…He who is Truth said…do this in REMEMBRANCE of me. So the idea is that it’s just like a memorial of sorts with no spiritual significance.

In the book of John, Jesus spoke symbolically and refers to Himself as a gate in John 10:9, but Catholics don’t take him literally there, so why do you take him literal 4 chapters earlier when he said " For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." John 6:55

Clearly, Jesus is speaking symbolically there as well. Once again the Catholic Church got it wrong!!!

Hi la,

Not either/or again.

It is highly explained transubstantion, or it is " just a memorial of sorts with no spiritual significance". I am with you on calling the latter wrong. Trouble is I also call the former wrong.

Blessings

 

[Dorothy]

The teaching our Lord Jesus Christ in John Chapter 4 came before the Last Supper when he instituted the Eucharist.

IT IS A LIVING MEMORIAL!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi la,

Not either/or again.

It is highly explained transubstantion, or it is " just a memorial of sorts with no spiritual significance". I am with you on calling the latter wrong. Trouble is I also call the former wrong.

Blessings

Good day, benhur.

So what do you think that you, personally, get from receiving it?

And what do you think about the bolded part of Della’s statement. Sound reasonable?:

Firstly, they are interpreting “in remembrance of me” wrongly. It means to reconnect to the event being done, it doesn’t mean “just think of me when you do this.”

Secondly, ask them why Jesus was so specific and made it a commandment to do this rite, if it is only spiritual? Why did St. Paul tell us that people had gotten sick and died because they ate and drank the sacred species unworthily, if it is only spiritual, merely a symbol?

Thirdly, what was Jesus doing at the Last Supper? He told us himself, he was establishing a new covenant in his body and blood. All the covenants God made with man from Adam on were actual sacrifices, not merely “spiritual.” Jesus was saying that the offering of his body and blood was the new sacrifice offered for sin.

Fourthly, it is a symbol, but it’s not only a symbol. All the sacraments are symbols and signs of actual graces being bestowed through them. So, they’ve got that part kind of right, but not fully right.

All the metaphorical images he used, gate, shepherd, etc. were leading up to telling them about being united with him more intimately, through consuming his body and blood. The Jews were so shocked by this they not only didn’t believe him, many who had been his disciples turned away and followed him no more. Jesus didn’t correct them. He didn’t tell them he was speaking metaphorically. Instead, he turned to Peter to ask if his central core followers, his Apostles would also leave him over this teaching. Peter answered for them all saying, “To whom else can we go? You have the words of everlasting life.” Seems pretty straight-forward.

The teaching that the Eucharist is truly Christ’s body and blood is an ancient one. Actually, it is they, your family/friends, who have to explain why they have rejected the clear teaching of the Church, as taught by the Apostles. Catholics don’t have to explain why we retained this teaching so central to Christian belief and practice as recorded in Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Justin Martyr

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

Martin Luther

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Martin Luther

The hardliner fundamentalists say this is the “baggage” that a “conditioned” Luther failed to purge himself of after breaking from the Church.

I say, great points made, Father Luther!!!

 

[Della]

The hardliner fundamentalists say this is the “baggage” that a “conditioned” Luther failed to purge himself of after breaking from the Church.

I say, great points made, Father, Luther!!!

When I was in the Assemblies of God, that’s the argument they made against using Luther or any of the early reformers’ comments on this and a host of other Catholic teachings that such sects reject. It’s easier than addressing the topic from Church history or even their own logic that God, being God, can do whatever he wants however he pleases.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

When I was in the Assemblies of God, that’s the argument they made against using Luther or any of the early reformers’ comments on this and a host of other Catholic teachings that such sects reject. It’s easier than addressing the topic from Church history or even their own logic that God, being God, can do whatever he wants however he pleases.

Good point. I’m not that familiar with assemblies of God.

Catholics get accused of being scripturally illiterate. And I suppose there is truth to that, but not as a whole anymore, imo. Many of us are protestant converts who came to the Church having already internalized the gospels.

But protestants outside this forum are typically ignorant of Church councils outside maybe ACTS 15 and patristic writings outside maybe a few Augustine quotes who seem to agree with their own theology, at least on the surface.

And it’s not just the average pew sitting protestant lacking in this dept. Some former protestant ministers have said the seminary they attended covers to about 100AD then you take a lunch break and come back and start talking about Luther. As if the 1400 years in between there didn’t actually happen.

Luther made the point that he cant trust in Church Fathers who contradict each other(paraphrasing) And it’s a valid point, however you can read a body of work and get a general impression of the belief of that era.

 

[Della]

Good point. I’m not that familiar with assemblies of God.

As I recall, it’s the largest Pentecostal sect in the world. It was founded in the 1930’s in CA.

Catholics get accused of being scripturally illiterate. And I suppose there is truth to that, but not as a whole anymore, imo. Many of us are protestant converts who came to the Church having already internalized the gospels.

And I believe that influx (I’m one of them) influenced Bible studies in our parishes. Vatican II encouraged such Bible study, so it came at just the right time, or so it seems to me.

But protestants outside this forum are typically ignorant of Church councils outside maybe ACTS 15 and patristic writings outside maybe a few Augustine quotes who seem to agree with their own theology, at least on the surface.

And it’s not just the average pew sitting protestant lacking in this dept. Some former protestant ministers have said the seminary they attended covers to about 100AD then you take a lunch break and come back and start talking about Luther. As if the 1400 years in between there didn’t actually happen.

That was my experience, as well. I never heard of the ECFs in the AoG (not even before my time in that sect when I was an Episcopalian). I even earned a B. A. in Bible from an AoG college never once hearing that there even were any ECFs.

Luther made the point that he cant trust in Church Fathers who contradict each other(paraphrasing) And it’s a valid point, however you can read a body of work and get a general impression of the belief of that era.

Of course he was trying to justify his break with the Church, knowing full well that it is the Magisterium of the Church and not theologians or historians that decide matters of faith and morals for the faithful. No matter what anyone can cherry pick from the ECFs, the fact that they did not have the authority to do that seems to elude or be ignored by those who glean their writings trying to “prove” that the Church’s positions on this, and other teachings, are wrong or not historically accurate. It’s just plain unbelievable that the Church is ignorant of her own Fathers’ writings or that she never took their full contexts into account when formulating doctrinal decisions.

 

[benhur]

Good day, benhur.

So what do you think that you, personally, get from receiving it?

And what do you think about the bolded part of Della’s statement. Sound reasonable?:

Hi La,

Well as one forefather wrote I am physically nourished by the transmutation of the elements (bread and wine). Beyond that is the spiritual reality that benefits the partaker. I have often stated that it would be hard to discern who has had a transubstantiated host from a consubstantiated, or spiritual/ symbolic host at Sunday brunch or at the office water cooler Monday (all other things being equal).

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

As I recall, it’s the largest Pentecostal sect in the world. It was founded in the 1930’s in CA

.Wow, well, that’s something I should have known lol. The Pentecostal folks I knew were not allowed to watch TV or wear makeup. But I’m not sure if it was AOG they were a part of.

And I believe that influx (I’m one of them) influenced Bible studies in our parishes. Vatican II encouraged such Bible study, so it came at just the right time, or so it seems to me. That was my experience, as well. I never heard of the ECFs in the AoG (not even before my time in that sect when I was an Episcopalian). I even earned a B. A. in Bible from an AoG college never once hearing that there even were any ECFs.

That is such a shame Leaving out 1400 years of the Churches’ existence is like grandpa telling his grandkids he wants to share his life story with them…then he covers up to age 8, then jumps to age 60 in his biography.

Of course he was trying to justify his break with the Church, knowing full well that it is the Magisterium of the Church and not theologians or historians that decide matters of faith and morals for the faithful. No matter what anyone can cherry pick from the ECFs, the fact that they did not have the authority to do that seems to elude or be ignored by those who glean their writings trying to “prove” that the Church’s positions on this, and other teachings, are wrong or not historically accurate. It’s just plain unbelievable that the Church is ignorant of her own Fathers’ writings or that she never took their full contexts into account when formulating doctrinal decisions.

Very true.

Luther was a brilliant man, but sometimes people can educate themselves into imbecility and over analyze everything.

 

[benhur]

When I was in the Assemblies of God, that’s the argument they made against using Luther or any of the early reformers’ comments on this and a host of other Catholic teachings that such sects reject. It’s easier than addressing the topic from Church history or even their own logic that God, being God, can do whatever he wants however he pleases.

Hi D,

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli each looked at same evidences (Writ, and Apostolic tradition, patristic writings) as does the CC, and each came away with differing views. None shrug HIStory.(though they may disagree with one’s "take’’ on history). It is not *Catholic history *or none at all.

I would gladly take the responsibility, even privilege, of indeed seeking Christ on the matter of these differences than having to accept what seems the other extreme of too much required dogmatic explanation.

Gladly not even Lutherans follow Luther but ideally Christ. While he was mightily used of God, even Lutherans know that not all that Luther muttered or wrote was “followable”.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi D,

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli each looked at same evidences (Writ, and Apostolic tradition, patristic writings) as does the CC, and each came away with differing views. None shrug HIStory.(though they may disagree with one’s "take’’ on history). It is not *Catholic history *or none at all.

I would gladly take the responsibility, even privilege, of indeed seeking Christ on the matter of these differences than having to accept what seems the other extreme of too much required dogmatic explanation.

Gladly not even Lutherans follow Luther but ideally Christ. While he was mightily used of God, even Lutherans know that not all that Luther muttered or wrote was “followable”.

Blessings

Hi Ben

Humanely speaking, the CC authored the NT and later codified it.

If Benhur authored a book then shot it to the moon, only to be retrieved say 1500 years after the fact, much may be lost in translation and your full intent or message may not be realized by the folks who recovered it. Probably the English language had changed a great deal from now to then, different idioms used, the cultural aspect of the era also needs strong consideration, etc, etc.

So if there is a problem, you consult the author since books do not interpret themselves.

30,000 or whatever number of denominations with conflicting doctrines at different degrees, all reading the same bibles and all claiming to be guided by the Spirit means there is something wrong here, since God doesn’t contradict himself.

 

[Della]

Hi D,

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli each looked at same evidences (Writ, and Apostolic tradition, patristic writings) as does the CC, and each came away with differing views. None shrug HIStory.(though they may disagree with one’s "take’’ on history). It is not *Catholic history *or none at all.

You seem to be forgetting that all those men left the Catholic Church, which was the only Church except for Orthodox, Coptic and other disconnected branches that got lost due to distances and time. The Catholic Church was and is, one, holy catholic, and apostolic. It was when they were alive and it is now. The Lutheran Church is not an equal with the Catholic Church, it is an off-shoot–one that rejected its parent Church on some issues and then went on to reject even more the farther it got from its founder.

I would gladly take the responsibility, even privilege, of indeed seeking Christ on the matter of these differences than having to accept what seems the other extreme of too much required dogmatic explanation.

What do you think dogma is? A stricture on intellect or our wills? It is neither. It is letting us know what is true so that we can have confidence that what we receive is indeed what Christ taught about it. If the Church he founded isn’t right about it, who is?

Gladly not even Lutherans follow Luther but ideally Christ. While he was mightily used of God, even Lutherans know that not all that Luther muttered or wrote was “followable”.

Blessings

You are setting up a false dichotomy here between Christ and his Church. Remember that when Saul was persecuting the Church Jesus didn’t ask him, “Why are you persecuting my followers”" he asked, “Why are you persecuting me?” Jesus told his Apostles that whoever heard them heard him. By believing Church teachings, we are following Christ in the Church he established. That’s evidence enough right there.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben

Humanely speaking, the CC authored the NT and later codified it.

If Benhur authored a book then shot it to the moon, only to be retrieved say 1500 years after the fact, much may be lost in translation and your full intent or message may not be realized by the folks who recovered it. Probably the English language had changed a great deal from now to then, different idioms used, the cultural aspect of the era also needs strong consideration, etc, etc.

So if there is a problem, you consult the author since books do not interpret themselves.

30,000 or whatever number of denominations with conflicting doctrines at different degrees, all reading the same bibles and all claiming to be guided by the Spirit means there is something wrong here, since God doesn’t contradict himself.

HI La,

Agree and why I stated that Apostolic faith/tradition and patristic writing are part of the evidences/tools the Author uses to help illumine the reader. And as you see, I capitalize Author, the source and breath of any illumination. He illumines Writ , Apostolic tradition, and patristic writings, and pretty much everything under the sun (anything humanely authored, touched etc.)

As to the 30,000, as I told Abu, while God does not author confusion, He also does not author presumption of infallibility, and exclusivity, the other error end of the spectrum. Sectarianism is sectarianism, whether claiming exclusivity of rightness against three or 30,000.

We are in glass houses and the good, bad, and ugly is not hid from. So if we be at odds, for sure, " only God is true while men are liars (fallible)".

Blessings

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

1. We are not asked to believe “transubstantiation”. We are asked to believe Real Presence.
2. Symbol = mystery = token = representation = a thing as ambassador = something that is more than meets the eye.

In a court room the portrait of the Queen is behind the judge, hence implying it is a bit serious-like.

Put a cent on the desk. Then a dollar. So the dollar is worth no more than the cent?

If a symbol of Christ walked in, Protestants would be flat on their faces!

1. There must be far more to it than even that because no-one knows what “discerning the Body” means.

 

[eddie_too]

i agree with the protestants, what they celebrate as the Lord’s Supper is indeed a symbolic celebration. also, i acknowledge that symbols do influence human feelings and behaviors.

however, the protestants who insist that Catholics are also only celebrating a symbol in their Eucharist are completely wrong. they are speaking from ignorance. they have no idea or experience of what Catholics receive when they worthily receive Holy Communion.

for protestants to insist that the bread and wine consecrated in the Catholic celebration of the Holy Eucharist is nothing but a symbol is a type of arrogance. it is arrogance that originates in ignorance and a lack of faith, but arrogance nevertheless.

it is true that protestants cannot experience what Catholics experience in their worthy reception of the consecrated bread and wine. but, to then insist that Catholics experience a symbolic interaction in receiving the consecrated bread and wine just as the protestants experience a symbolic intereaction in their symbolic reception of their symbolic bread and wine, is irrational.

i say it is irrational because the protestants have no idea what the Catholics experience. to pass judgment on others when you have never experienced what the others have experienced is irrational and has no basis in reality.

since i do not receive a symbol when i receive the consecrated bread and wine, i cannot say what the protestants’ experience when they have a symbolic communion with our Lord. i suspect the protestant experience of Jesus is similar to the patriot’s experience when they honor the flag of their country but i do not know because i have not had that protestant experience.

i know that my reception of the consecrated bread and wine far surpasses any symbolic experience i have ever had. that is how i know that i am receiving the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.

i do honor however the protestants’ insistence that their commemoration of the Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic and i accept that as their authentic experience. i reject the protestant assertion that they know what i am receiving when i receive the consecrated bread and wine. they cannot say that with any sense of honesty because they do not know what i receive. the protestants should really stop these attacks on something that is beyond their faith, knowledge and understanding. these attacks on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic Eucharist make the protestants look bad in more ways than one.

 

[benhur]

You seem to be forgetting that all those men left the Catholic Church, which was the only Church except for Orthodox, Coptic and other disconnected branches that got lost due to distances and time. The Catholic Church was and is, one, holy catholic, and apostolic. It was when they were alive and it is now. The Lutheran Church is not an equal with the Catholic Church, it is an off-shoot–one that rejected its parent Church on some issues and then went on to reject even more the farther it got from its founder.

Hi D,

Yes, they were properly catechized, and even ordained by the CC (some reformers), yet somehow saw Catholic History differently. They did not presume apostolicity to all doctrine, even practices. They did not presume that things that were added, evolved and or deduced by necessity from our foundation, are exactly what the apostles would have ruled if they had been still alive.

What do you think dogma is? A stricture on intellect or our wills? It is neither. It is letting us know what is true so that we can have confidence that what we receive is indeed what Christ taught about it. If the Church he founded isn’t right about it, who is?

Well certainly not the Orthodox, nor Protestants, nor any distant offshoots…? They are of the nature of Korah, for when has the Shepherd of covenants ever allowed any of His Truth carriers to reject His prophets ?

You are setting up a false dichotomy here between Christ and his Church. Remember that when Saul was persecuting the Church Jesus didn’t ask him, “Why are you persecuting my followers”" he asked, “Why are you persecuting me?” Jesus told his Apostles that whoever heard them heard him. By believing Church teachings, we are following Christ in the Church he established. That’s evidence enough right there. /

And which teachings are we to believe ? Was Barnabus off the mark when he penned, “It is well, that those who has learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them” ?

No false dichotomy. There is grace and salvation in “other” (Lutheran/P) churches. They are both part of the church and follow Christ. We must not be like the apostles when they mistrusted the Lord’s ability to have followers that did not hang out with the twelve 24/7.

It is a given that Christ and His followers are one. Give me a cup of water and you give it to Christ.

I understand the CC claiming “umbrellaship” of all other sects, but in doing so, she becomes one herself.

And now we become like the Corinthians and say , “I am of Peter”, or, " I am of Paul", or, " of Apollos". We are now both sectarian, and with some necessity but some carnality also.

May we be scriptural and say in such differences may we be imputed as fallible sheep but never God who can only be true. We have to get beyond the paradigm that if we are in error it accuses the Shepherd.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

i agree with the protestants, what they celebrate as the Lord’s Supper is indeed a symbolic celebration. also, i acknowledge that symbols do influence human feelings and behaviors.

however, the protestants who insist that Catholics are also only celebrating a symbol in their Eucharist are completely wrong. they are speaking from ignorance. they have no idea or experience of what Catholics receive when they worthily receive Holy Communion.

for protestants to insist that the bread and wine consecrated in the Catholic celebration of the Holy Eucharist is nothing but a symbol is a type of arrogance. it is arrogance that originates in ignorance and a lack of faith, but arrogance nevertheless.

it is true that protestants cannot experience what Catholics experience in their worthy reception of the consecrated bread and wine. but, to then insist that Catholics experience a symbolic interaction in receiving the consecrated bread and wine just as the protestants experience a symbolic intereaction in their symbolic reception of their symbolic bread and wine, is irrational.

i say it is irrational because the protestants have no idea what the Catholics experience. to pass judgment on others when you have never experienced what the others have experienced is irrational and has no basis in reality.

since i do not receive a symbol when i receive the consecrated bread and wine, i cannot say what the protestants’ experience when they have a symbolic communion with our Lord. i suspect the protestant experience of Jesus is similar to the patriot’s experience when they honor the flag of their country but i do not know because i have not had that protestant experience.

i know that my reception of the consecrated bread and wine far surpasses any symbolic experience i have ever had. that is how i know that i am receiving the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.

i do honor however the protestants’ insistence that their commemoration of the Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic and i accept that as their authentic experience. i reject the protestant assertion that they know what i am receiving when i receive the consecrated bread and wine. they cannot say that with any sense of honesty because they do not know what i receive. the protestants should really stop these attacks on something that is beyond their faith, knowledge and understanding. these attacks on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic Eucharist make the protestants look bad in more ways than one.

Hi e,

Again Luther, Calvin and Zwingli experienced both the CC Eucharist and later a reformed view(s). Do not think they were ignorant or arrogant. Do not think the spiritual benefit changed as they changed views. Do not think they would have a chosen a "lesser’’ spiritual experience.

We as even the reformers are at odds in belief. For sure they and we still see attacks , but of one upon the other . It is just not RP that is "attacked’’. By nature of the argument they are at odds, but by nature of the proponent it can be seen as an attack or a testimony.

 

[Della]

Hi D,

Yes, they were properly catechized, and even ordained by the CC (some reformers), yet somehow saw Catholic History differently. They did not presume apostolicity to all doctrine, even practices. They did not presume that things that were added, evolved and or deduced by necessity from our foundation, are exactly what the apostles would have ruled if they had been still alive.
Well certainly not the Orthodox, nor Protestants, nor any distant offshoots…? They are of the nature of Korah, for when has the Shepherd of covenants ever allowed any of His Truth carriers to reject His prophets ?And which teachings are we to believe ? Was Barnabus off the mark when he penned, “It is well, that those who has learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them” ?

No false dichotomy. There is grace and salvation in “other” (Lutheran/P) churches. They are both part of the church and follow Christ. We must not be like the apostles when they mistrusted the Lord’s ability to have followers that did not hang out with the twelve 24/7.

It is a given that Christ and His followers are one. Give me a cup of water and you give it to Christ.

I understand the CC claiming “umbrellaship” of all other sects, but in doing so, she becomes one herself.

And now we become like the Corinthians and say , “I am of Peter”, or, " I am of Paul", or, " of Apollos". We are now both sectarian, and with some necessity but some carnality also.

May we be scriptural and say in such differences may we be imputed as fallible sheep but never God who can only be true. We have to get beyond the paradigm that if we are in error it accuses the Shepherd.

Blessings

I never even hinted that human error “accuses the Shepherd” of anything :whacky:

Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than fancy rationalizations that allow you to be your own Magisterium, just as the reformers wanted to be. Well, no one is stopping you , but the Church is who and what she claims to be and has the authority to confect the Eucharist because Christ gave it to her and not to anyone else. The Sacrament was given so we could have Christ himself, his body, blood, soul and divinity to feast upon and thus be nourished in our faith in a manner no other experience of God gives us. No amount arguing the point cannot change this truth. If you don’t want the benefits only found in a valid Eucharist, that’s up to you. The Church freely offers all her faithful this matchless gift. If you want it all you have to do is stop rationalizing and accept the Church’s authority given to her by Christ.

 

[eddie_too]

benh

not sure how we can say what luther, etc, experienced. i doubt they experienced the Real Presence. if they had, the only reason they would have rejected it is because they considered themselves unworthy of being in communion with the Real Presence and that would make their experience non-efficacious.

if a person is unworthy of communion with the Real Presence, they cannot experience the benefits of the Real Presence. instead, the Real Presence brings condemnation upon them.

i am not a scholar on Luther, but i thought he also believed that the souls in heaven remain sinners but almighty God ignores their sins because they are cloaked from His view by the perfection of Jesus.

this line of reasoning might have led Luther to stop believing in the Real Presence.

also, my post was not about people who rejected the Real Presence after experiencing the Real Presence. it was about people who have never experienced it dismissing the faith, knowledge and understanding of those who have experienced it worthily.