Communion is just a symbol!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that you refer to ‘Communion’ rather than ‘Eucharist’ is significant…the term goes back to the very early Church [yes, they were Catholics…]…in the ‘Apostles’ Creed’, the term ‘Communion of Saints’ refers to the fact that our ancestors in faith knew that, in receiving the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, they were united not only with Him, but also with each other and with their ancestors in faith

We, their descendants in faith, have had this knowledge for 2,000 years…
 
Let me throw this out there.
  1. Why did Jesus use the words ‘fruit of the vine’ if it had already turned into His blood?
Matt 26:30 for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
  1. If we are to take John 6:54 literally, then we must also take literally the fact that He said
 
Let me throw this out there.
  1. Why did Jesus use the words ‘fruit of the vine’ if it had already turned into His blood?
Matt 26:30 *for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine *until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
  1. If we are to take John 6:54 literally, then we must also take literally the fact that He said
Why must we take both literally? They are hardly the same context. There is not the insistence in the face of incredulity.

Plus, Jesus is the true vine, is he not? 😉
 
Oops, I took too long trying to edit my post! Sorry about that. Here’s what I would like to ask:

Let me throw this out there.
  1. Why did Jesus use the words ‘fruit of the vine’ if it had already turned the wine into His blood?
Matt 26:30 for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
  1. Also, if we are to take John 6:54 literally, then we must also take literally the fact that He also said in 6:54 you must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.
John 6:54 * Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.*

But if that is true, then what about when he says that whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

So which is it that leads to eternal life? Believing in Jesus or eating His flesh and drinking His blood. What about the people that don’t?
  1. Jesus was the Word made flesh. Maybe when Jesus was talking about eating His flesh, He was referring to an OT passage?
Jeremiah 15:16 When I found your words, I devoured them;
your words were my joy, the happiness of my heart,
Because I bear your name,
Lord, God of hosts.
  1. Why did St Paul state that we should not drink blood? He didn’t say what kind of blood, just blood. How could people believe they were drinking Jesus’ blood if instructed not to drink blood.
Acts 15:20 *but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. *
  1. What about the fact that drinking any type of blood was against the OT Law. Wouldn’t Jesus be leading people to sin by telling people they must drink His blood? We know that Jesus didn’t sin, so I don’t understand how He could tell people to break the OT Law?
Points to ponder…
 
Points brought up everyday but which your Catholic catechesisust never have addressed. I’ll see if I can hop on a computer later.
 
My response would be is baptism symbolic or do you believe that we receive the Holy Spirit and forgiveness through the sacrament? If their response is no they do not believe baptism to be symbolic then ask why would one sacrament be symbolic and the other not?

If they respond that baptism is symbolic then just let them know that makes you sad because they are missing an unbelievable opportunity for grace. I’m a covert to the Catholic faith and went over 40 years without knowing about the real presence and now that I have found it would not give it up for anything.

I teach a small group that is part of our RCIA group and had one person who has gone to Mass for 8 years with his wife was going through the process. Ultimately he decided not to be confirmed because he did not believe in transubstantion. We have an adoration chapel and I politely encouraged him to go and just be in the presence with an open heart and seek Him there but he wouldn’t go.

I wish I could open the eyes that are blind to the presence and share our Lord with them but some just refuse to open their hearts. This is why I don’t understand how anyone could leave the Church and forsake such an unbelievable grace.
 
Because it’s still under the appearance of bread and wine and more sophisticated ways of talking about it did not yet exist. Paul still instructs us to discern the truth of it, though.

Christians believed it was true flesh and true blood for fifteen hundred years before the Reformation. It’s well documented. Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists agree. Did evangelicals suddenly just stumble on it being otherwise 400 years ago?
Propitiation means to appease the wrath of God

Catholics state their Mass is propitiatory.
Code:
"If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3)"
The Bible states it will stop when Christ return
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.- 1 Corinthians 11:26

Why would the propitiatory sacrifice stop when Christ returns?
It makes sense to stop if you were doing it “in remembrance”.
 
I have not read through all on this thread so forgive me if you have already discussed what I will share.i am a convert to Catholcism and am so Blessed to be in His Church and this is why… The Real Presence! I was totally ignorant of this or the “Early Church” I had my presumptions but NO facts to back up why I believe what I believed then. It opened Windows and doors to read about our Early Church Fathers of the Church!!! I can’t begin to explain all in this only to STRONGLY advise everyone seeking Truth to look to those Early Fathers for I site into ALL of Christ’s teachings! Don’t listen to “Pastor Joe” down the street over those who either knew Jesus or knew His disciples and those even taught by them- the very beginning of our Christian Faith. If you are honestly open wanting the Holy Spirit to show you Truth- you will be amazed ( and a bit scared… If you are Protestant how “Catholic” they are) This is true in this Sacrament as well. Please look at St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr, St Iranaeus f Lyons, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carrhage and on and on. Even a Protestant historian ( J. N.D.Kelly writes" Eucharistic teaching writes "ignatious roundly declares that… the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body… Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting Gnostic and Dcetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.( 197-98) Support for this goes on and on…
Please spend time and read these.
My love in Him,
mlz
 
Jesus was the Word made flesh. Maybe when Jesus was talking about eating His flesh, He was referring to an OT passage?

Jeremiah 15:16 When I found your words, I devoured them;
your words were my joy, the happiness of my heart,
Because I bear your name,
Lord, God of hosts.

Points to ponder…
Why not Ezekiel 3:3?
 
I have not read through all on this thread so forgive me if you have already discussed what I will share.i am a convert to Catholcism and am so Blessed to be in His Church and this is why… The Real Presence! I was totally ignorant of this or the “Early Church” I had my presumptions but NO facts to back up why I believe what I believed then. It opened Windows and doors to read about our Early Church Fathers of the Church!!! I can’t begin to explain all in this only to STRONGLY advise everyone seeking Truth to look to those Early Fathers for I site into ALL of Christ’s teachings! Don’t listen to “Pastor Joe” down the street over those who either knew Jesus or knew His disciples and those even taught by them- the very beginning of our Christian Faith. If you are honestly open wanting the Holy Spirit to show you Truth- you will be amazed ( and a bit scared… If you are Protestant how “Catholic” they are) This is true in this Sacrament as well. Please look at St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr, St Iranaeus f Lyons, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carrhage and on and on. Even a Protestant historian ( J. N.D.Kelly writes" Eucharistic teaching writes "ignatious roundly declares that… the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body… Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting Gnostic and Dcetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.( 197-98) Support for this goes on and on…
Please spend time and read these.
My love in Him,
mlz
Thank you for that beautiful post!
 
Propitiation means to appease the wrath of God

Catholics state their Mass is propitiatory.
hilasmos is found in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.

hilaskomai is found in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17.

Wrath of God? Ephesians 5:6 and others.

Hebrews 13:9-12.

The re-presentation of the sacrifice will stop when no one needs it.
 
I have not read through all on this thread so forgive me if you have already discussed what I will share.i am a convert to Catholcism and am so Blessed to be in His Church and this is why… The Real Presence! I was totally ignorant of this or the “Early Church” I had my presumptions but NO facts to back up why I believe what I believed then. It opened Windows and doors to read about our Early Church Fathers of the Church!!! I can’t begin to explain all in this only to STRONGLY advise everyone seeking Truth to look to those Early Fathers for I site into ALL of Christ’s teachings! Don’t listen to “Pastor Joe” down the street over those who either knew Jesus or knew His disciples and those even taught by them- the very beginning of our Christian Faith. If you are honestly open wanting the Holy Spirit to show you Truth- you will be amazed ( and a bit scared… If you are Protestant how “Catholic” they are) This is true in this Sacrament as well. Please look at St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr, St Iranaeus f Lyons, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carrhage and on and on. Even a Protestant historian ( J. N.D.Kelly writes" Eucharistic teaching writes "ignatious roundly declares that… the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body… Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting Gnostic and Dcetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.( 197-98) Support for this goes on and on…
Please spend time and read these.
My love in Him,
mlz
I researched the early writings a lot last year. This is some of what I found.

Justin Martyr - “Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in **remembrance of His being made flesh **for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs,” I said, “which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist,** the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity**, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Clement of Alexandria - “…Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

Tertullian - “He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”–meaning, of course, to the giving of life.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html
**
Augustine **- “Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: **“You are the body of Christ, member for member.” **[1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table!”
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a** figure**, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

I will continue with one final quote in another post.
 
I have not read through all on this thread so forgive me if you have already discussed what I will share.i am a convert to Catholcism and am so Blessed to be in His Church and this is why… The Real Presence! I was totally ignorant of this or the “Early Church” I had my presumptions but NO facts to back up why I believe what I believed then. It opened Windows and doors to read about our Early Church Fathers of the Church!!! I can’t begin to explain all in this only to STRONGLY advise everyone seeking Truth to look to those Early Fathers for I site into ALL of Christ’s teachings! Don’t listen to “Pastor Joe” down the street over those who either knew Jesus or knew His disciples and those even taught by them- the very beginning of our Christian Faith. If you are honestly open wanting the Holy Spirit to show you Truth- you will be amazed ( and a bit scared… If you are Protestant how “Catholic” they are) This is true in this Sacrament as well. Please look at St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr, St Iranaeus f Lyons, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carrhage and on and on. Even a Protestant historian ( J. N.D.Kelly writes" Eucharistic teaching writes "ignatious roundly declares that… the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body… Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting Gnostic and Dcetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.( 197-98) Support for this goes on and on…
Please spend time and read these.
My love in Him,
mlz
JND Kelly (modern day Anglican theologian) - “In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

I think realism and transubstantiation aren’t the same thing the way JND Kelly uses it.
 
JND Kelly (modern day Anglican theologian) - “In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

I think realism and transubstantiation aren’t the same thing the way JND Kelly uses it.
Thank you Susanlo, you have spent time researching and it proves that the whole issue is not as simple as so many have made it here with simplistic remarks.
 
This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food** consecrated by the Word of prayer** which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
Justin Martyr
 
Justin Martyr
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
“CHAPTER LXV – ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present** to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced**, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.** For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, ] and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. **For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”

I am not sure if he is saying the bread becomes flesh or if he is saying, like Augustine, that the flesh nourishes the Christians who are the body of Christ.

Chapter 26 is also interesting when he talks about the mystery cults performing fabulous and shameful deeds including eating human flesh. (This doesn’t mean he couldn’t believe in transubstantiation and condemn this. It adds to it, though.)
 
Thank you Susanlo, you have spent time researching and it proves that the whole issue is not as simple as so many have made it here with simplistic remarks.
Simple it is not.
Beautiful it is.
No matter how one celebrates it, it is a beautiful gift of salvation.

I hope to learn more - as I believe you do too. 🙂
 
I am not sure if he is saying the bread becomes flesh or if he is saying, like Augustine, that the flesh nourishes the Christians who are the body of Christ.

Chapter 26 is also interesting when he talks about the mystery cults performing fabulous and shameful deeds including eating human flesh. (This doesn’t mean he couldn’t believe in transubstantiation and condemn this. It adds to it, though.)
Spiritual food cannot be spiritual food unless it is actually spiritual food. The entire concept of nourishment contradicts the “symbol” in most profound ways, it contradicts the entire “lest we forget”.

Personally, I find that all the authors you have cited, don’t seem to agree with your interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top