Communion is just a symbol!

[Wannano]

This is the issue. There seems to be a common thread in objections to Catholic things. People note that clerical celibacy came into being over 1,000 years after Christ, but miss that clerical sexual continence is an ancient apostolic tradition going back to the early church. Or that the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception were stated in the 19th and 20th centuries, but again, are beliefs going back to the early Church and are similar on the same teachings (we can nuance the IC a little bit) of the Orthodox church). Or Purgatory supposedly wasn’t developed until a thousand years later, but miss that the early Church did believe in prayers that helped the dead and even the suffering of the faithful dead who were not damned but apparently weren’t in heaven either, but that the martyrs were made perfect through their earthly suffering and went straight to heaven.

Not to take us off topic, mind. The consistent teaching has been that we eat the flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation may be a formal, metaphysical statement, articulated in a certain way that clarifies what is this does and does not entail, but it’s not like the central teaching of it is anything new. It’s point of fact central to Christian life.

Maybe I am just a little thick headed today as I am not sure I am completely understanding. I have some times read a post and not able to process it and then when I come back later and reread it it makes more sense.

I am not sure, maybe you did answer my questions in an indirect way…but don’t be hesitant to tell me if I am wrong if you think I am wrong.

 

[susanlo]

This is the issue. There seems to be a common thread in objections to Catholic things. Or that the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception were stated in the 19th and 20th centuries, but again, are beliefs going back to the early Church and are similar on the same teachings (we can nuance the IC a little bit) of the Orthodox church).

I am sorry that this is off topic, but I wanted to add. The reason some people believe that the Marian dogmas weren’t always believed is because theologians like Augustine didn’t believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Maybe some did at the time, but it is hard to know the history of the belief.

Augustine - On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II)
"It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.” Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

Augustine - Exposition on Psalm 35
“So then the sin of the Lord is that which was caused by sin; because He assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’ve heard this objection before but don’t know how to defend it. Could you explain how it doesn’t violate the law? Thanks.

Post #57 by Wesrock is my initial reaction to anyone objecting. In Leviticus it says don’t eat the blood because it is the ***life ***of the creature(paraphrase) Jesus, the ***author ***of Life(John 14:6) is Life (John 6:48)and instructs us to partake to have eternal life (John 6:54)

So it’s actually kind of consistent with the OT when you think about it. The OT is said to be God’s will concealed, the NT is God’s will REVEALED. And I would contend it is fully revealed through the lens of the Church (1 Tim 3:15) and not through private interpretation.

But another thing to consider is, we aren’t under Mosaic Law, we are under the new covenant. That’s why I can confidently devour a medium rare steak w/o worry.

Pax

 

[Della]

The thing with many who cite this verse and that verse, seeking to support to their own theologies is that 1) they misunderstand how to interpret Scripture, 2) they use Scripture as a “proof-text,” which it isn’t, was never intended to be, and never has been, 3) they start out with a preconceived notion, then search for verses to try to prove their notion–a very poor exegetical method, and finally, 4) they ignore the whole context, not only the verses, but of salvation history itself. We’ve seen all those errors here in this thread. Catholics don’t come up with a theory and then try to prove it. We merely pass on what the Apostles taught while delving into that teaching to mine all its riches.

The Bible, as part of Sacred Tradition, is quite useful and is to be consulted, but it’s not an authority. It’s a witness to God working among men for our salvation, but it’s not, as some Protestants claim, the sole rule of faith and morals. Any interpretation that doesn’t agree with the Magisterium of the Church is in error. No amount of proof-texting will erase that truth. Those who deny this, knowingly and willingly, will have to answer, not to the Church, but to Christ who founded the Church on the Apostles, not on any writings no matter how inspired they may be.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

“Spiritual food and drink” and literal flesh and blood aren’t exactly synonyms. I don’t know if any group denies the spirituality of the Eucharist. Why else would it be done? I don’t know if that terminology makes a clear distinction of the understanding of the physical substance of the elements by those writing the Didache.

The more fundamentalists churches do not believe there is any spiritual significance from taking communion. It is a symbolic ordinance for them. They do it because the Lord said to do it. And often times it’s only done monthly or in some places quarterly.

 

[LethalMouse]

The brinze statue that cured snake bites was just a chunk of metal

The ark of the covenant was just a cool box

That is the only way to see these things with the logic they use for the Eucharist

 

[susanlo]

The more fundamentalists churches do not believe there is any spiritual significance from taking communion. It is a symbolic ordinance for them. They do it because the Lord said to do it. And often times it’s only done monthly or in some places quarterly.

From my experience, there is great spiritual depth in experiencing the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice. I wonder if you spoke to people from the churches you speak of if they would agree that there is nothing spiritual occurring. They probably don’t believe forgiveness of sins is happening, but thankfully reflecting on Christ’s passion is pretty significant.

 

[Della]

From my experience, there is great spiritual depth in experiencing the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice. I wonder if you spoke to people from the churches you speak of if they would agree that there is nothing spiritual occurring. They probably don’t believe forgiveness of sins is happening, but thankfully reflecting on Christ’s passion is pretty significant.

There’s great spiritual depth in all forms of prayer. What these good folks are experiencing is a type of “spiritual communion.” That’s okay, as far as it goes, but it’s not the same thing as receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ any more than looking at pictures of food is eating that food. One might get a glow looking at a picture of a steak, but it’s only in anticipation of eating a steak. We can anticipate union with Christ in heaven, which is fine, but it doesn’t feed our souls like actually receiving Christ in the Eucharist. It’s not the same thing.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

From my experience, there is great spiritual depth in experiencing the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice. I wonder if you spoke to people from the churches you speak of if they would agree that there is nothing spiritual occurring. They probably don’t believe forgiveness of sins is happening, but thankfully reflecting on Christ’s passion is pretty significant.

Sure, I mean it’s uplifting just like a bible study or watching the passion of Christ on TV. Some people at the Church i was at complained because we only had it once per month.

But there is a big difference in our theology of imputed vs infused righteousness. Hence, the “spiritual food and drink” described in the Didache which we believe gives us grace. Protestants OTOH, even high church, tend to believe in a visible sign of a inward reality. For them, said grace is already there and you are already, and most cases, permanently justified.

 

[steve_b]

Greetings,

A protestant rebuttal for that is that Jesus speaks figuratively and does not make a habit of correcting himself whether people misunderstand or not:

And a sheet of paper is deeper than that rebuttal.
L:

John 2:19-22New International Version (NIV)

And it shows He did exactly what He said He would do.

 

[SJacob7]

The thing with many who cite this verse and that verse, seeking to support to their own theologies is that 1) they misunderstand how to interpret Scripture, 2) they use Scripture as a “proof-text,” which it isn’t, was never intended to be, and never has been, 3) they start out with a preconceived notion, then search for verses to try to prove their notion–a very poor exegetical method, and finally, 4) they ignore the whole context, not only the verses, but of salvation history itself. We’ve seen all those errors here in this thread. Catholics don’t come up with a theory and then try to prove it. We merely pass on what the Apostles taught while delving into that teaching to mine all its riches.

The Bible, as part of Sacred Tradition, is quite useful and is to be consulted, but it’s not an authority. It’s a witness to God working among men for our salvation, but it’s not, as some Protestants claim, the sole rule of faith and morals. Any interpretation that doesn’t agree with the Magisterium of the Church is in error. No amount of proof-texting will erase that truth. Those who deny this, knowingly and willingly, will have to answer, not to the Church, but to Christ who founded the Church on the Apostles, not on any writings no matter how inspired they may be.

Just a quick question, if the Bible isn’t an authority, where did the Church get hers?

 

[Peccavi]

Jesus followed Mosaic Law but interpreted it radically, it was Paul who said ( in disagreement with James and other disciples in the Jerusalem Church) Christians need not.

 

[clem456]

Why is the Incarnation not a symbol then? The real physical presence of God in the real world. What’s the difference? Can God do that or not?

Pointing to scripture is no answer, since you have to justify how you take “and the Word became flesh” literally, but not the teaching on the Eucharist.
In fact the teaching on the Eucharist is more literally emphatic out of Jesus’ own mouth than the references to the Incarnation.

(I’m just curious why…I’ve asked this question in various threads many many times in relation to the Eucharist and the real existence of the Church, and it is never answered.)

 

[Wannano]

Pointing to scripture is no answer,

In fact the teaching on the Eucharist is more literally emphatic out of Jesus’ own mouth than the references to the Incarnation.

()

If pointing to Scripture is no answer and as Della formerly posted that the Bible is no authority how do you substantiate your last sentence above? I need your help in understanding it. Thanks.

 

[clem456]

If pointing to Scripture is no answer and as Della formerly posted that the Bible is no authority how do you substantiate your last sentence above? I need your help in understanding it. Thanks.

Yea not very clear.
By no answer I mean no answer to justify the obvious contradiction. If you point to scripture in one place and reject it another, that is not an answer. It’s simply a contradictory and arbitrary use of scripture.

The clear defining point of Christianity is that God became flesh and dwelt among us. Christ
is a real person with a real physical presence. He lived with people, ate with people, touched them healed them, gave them a mission.

Yet we can’t take his emphatic word that he gives us his flesh to eat.


We live in a hyper-spiritualized world. Dare I say “gnostic”?

 

[Wannano]

Yea not very clear.
By no answer I mean no answer to justify the obvious contradiction. If you point to scripture in one place and reject it another, that is not an answer. It’s simply a contradictory and arbitrary use of scripture.

The clear defining point of Christianity is that God became flesh and dwelt among us. Christ
is a real person with a real physical presence. He lived with people, ate with people, touched them healed them, gave them a mission.

Yet we can’t take his emphatic word that he gives us his flesh to eat.


We live in a hyper-spiritualized world. Dare I say “gnostic”?

Thanks for your response. I agree with your first two paragraphs, the issue in the first paragraph is true for both sides of an differing understanding.

What do you see in the term “gnostic”? I wish I had more time and was more knowledgeable than I am. If you care to define your last sentence I am interested.

 

[Della]

Just a quick question, if the Bible isn’t an authority, where did the Church get hers?

From Christ himself. It’s recorded in the Bible, but the Church’s authority isn’t based on the Bible. The Church predates the Bible’s canon by about three hundred years–and that’s just when the books were collected and approved with full approval not given for centuries after that. The books of the Bible were compiled into a canon so that all the diocese and parishes would read the same texts for the Church’s liturgies. The books of the Bible were not compiled to prove anything theological one way or the other since the Church already existed.

 

[clem456]

Just a quick question, if the Bible isn’t an authority, where did the Church get hers?

Let me see if I understand…
you are asserting that before Christ came into human flesh, the NT was written, and apostles and Christ himself were all subject to the pre-written NT.

Do I have it right?

 

[Nicene]

Just a quick question, if the Bible isn’t an authority, where did the Church get hers?

From Christ

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

If pointing to Scripture is no answer and as Della formerly posted that the Bible is no authority how do you substantiate your last sentence above? I need your help in understanding it. Thanks.

For a non Catholic the word of God is the bible. For a Catholic “The word of God” is Christ.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and the name by which he is called is The Word of God

Peace and God bless
Nicene