"Communion is not symbolic for me." Please help me explain this better to my p-side friend

  • Thread starter Thread starter KCtheMommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KCtheMommy

Guest
I have a really good evangelical friend, and we have a lot of interesting theological discussions. I am not going to say debates because we do actually learn a lot from each other. She has a very good handle on Scripture. (Of course, there are differences in beliefs) But she knows her stuff. Her knowledge of scripture is vast.

Anyway, a while ago she mentioned she takes communion in her church. We got into a discussion on communion and how for her church it’s a symbolic nod to the last supper. For us it’s the Eucharist, the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD. I think we were discussing why nobody but us (and Eastern and Greek Orthodox) can take communion in our church. So I explain this to her, and she can’t seem to bend her mind around it. She continuously throws in the term “symbolic” when referring to our Eucharist.

“No, it’s not symbolic, it’s the actual BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. We believe that. I believe that.”

I’ve explained the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the transformation from bread and wine to BODY AND BLOOD by the Holy Spirit, the fact that it is no longer just bread and wine, it’s not SYMBOLICALLY the Body and Blood – it actually IS. She can’t get it. She keeps throwing that term “symbolic” into each conversation about it.

So outside of plainly and clearly explaining our beliefs on this, which is simply not working, not even symbolically :rolleyes: , what more can I do?

Would it be rude to offer her The Lamb’s Supper? See if she reads it?

It’s driving me batty. “Stop saying it’s symbolic! It’s not symbolic – your communion is symbolic!!” :rotfl: She got a good dig in on me last night that had me laughing, so it’s not like we are actually fighting or anything. She calls me “Uber-Catholic” LOL. She is interested/enamored in our teachings on family and marriage, and I have offered to let her borrow the Catechism.

BUT – how do I get her to understand this reality of the Eucharist? Again, I’ve said it plainly, but she can’t seem to accept it. 🤷 Or she’s just getting digs in on me. 😛
 
This is really one of the most simple of acts by Jesus to explain…after all He spoke to a group of ‘learned’ individuals and used the words that we know just before receiving the sacred Host…the bible tells us some in the crowd shook their heads and walked away…now if Jesus was only talking on symbolic terms all He had to do was yell out’Hey Fellas,where ya goin…I dont mean this in a lieteral sense that would be silly…!" but no,our Savlior repeated it three times and did not …NOT…call back and try to keep the confused ones from leaving…to me thats it…This is my body…this is my blood…etc…Nino
 
Since she is well versed in Scripture, ask her to show you all the scriptural references saying it is only symbolic. By her lack of being able to come up with a single reference, perhaps the light will turn on for her.

Good idea, by the way, of giving her The Lamb’s Supper.
 
KCtheMommy said:
BUT – how do I get her to understand this reality of the Eucharist? Again, I’ve said it plainly, but she can’t seem to accept it. 🤷 Or she’s just getting digs in on me. 😛
Click to expand...
If your friend has a pretty good handle on Scripture, you could try and explain to her that there is ample proof from Scripture that Jesus was speaking literally when He instituted the Eucharist as a sacrament in John 6. His disciples back then understood Him literally, and His Catholic disciples today continue to do so:
  • From earlier in John 6:16-22, we know that the disciples has just seen Him perform the miracle of the loaves and the fish and walk on water the day before this “hard teaching”. These very real miracles were very fresh in the minds of His disciples, and yet they left Him over a symbol?
  • Jesus says in verse 59 that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is greater than the miracle of the manna in the desert. Can a mere symbol be greater than such a very real miracle that served to sustain an entire people?
  • Why was this labeled by the disciples as such a “hard teaching”? Is symbolically eating a piece of bread and symbolically drinking some wine/grape juice really a hard teaching? Has anyone ever left a non-Catholic Christian church because they objected to symbolically eating a piece of bread and symbolically drinking wine/grape juice?
  • Does it really make sense that performing a symbolic act would be sufficient to warrant everlasting life?
John 6:51-55 - *I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. *

There is not even a whisker of symbolic language in here, and the ramifications of the act Jesus is proposing are very real and significant. A mystery, most definitely, but not a symbol.
  • If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why didn’t He explain to the Jews and disciples whom were leaving that He was just being symbolic and there was no need to get stressed out about a literal interpretation? Whenever Jesus told a parable which was not understood (either by the people, the disciples, or both), He made a point of clarifying and explaining His message until it was understood. See Matthew 13 for a few quick examples in the sower and the seed, as well as the cockle and the field.
Also notable is the fact that St. Paul (who was not a disciple at the time of the Last Supper) preached transubstantiation as well. When all of Scripture is taken into account and in context, it becomes very clear that Jesus was speaking literally and not symbolically, and that those in His presence understood as much. Throw in the early church fathers and early Christians who were martyred with death sentences such as cannibalism, and it’s not hard to show that the early church understood Jesus literally as well:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

There are ways to show all of this nicely, of course, and you can decide if any of it will help drive home your point. The worst your friend can do is disagree with this (extremely logical and very well supported) interpretation of Scripture.
 
mpernot – thanks! That is wonderful!

I know John 6, but I need to really get ready for the argument. She’s a stubborn one, that girl, and is very adept at switching up on me in Scriptural discussion. So I’m breaking out the bible to get prepared to argue this. I typically don’t argue anything Scripture with her because she has a very Protestant-leaning understanding (well, duh) and again, she knows the bible better than I so if I challenge a Protestant leaning belief, she’ll start rapid firing other versus at me and I get all :hypno:.

Your arguments are good, I appreciate it. Here I just planned to try and get her to understand the actual concept. Now I am going to go there with scripture and challenge her beliefs. :cool:

I’ll let you know how that goes. :tiphat:
 
I have a link that might help. About a year ago, I took the Catholic Answers article and added to it and reshaped it a bit, providing some more background information and adding some of my own interpretation (I’m a professional historian). Take a look at my article at this link, and see what you think:

See post #4:
catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28818
 
Hey, former evangelical protestant here, raised by 2 generations of ministers even!

First question, what “brand” of protestant. It is a BIG pond, with many different beliefs and doctrines, so - to know what she claims will help point you in the way of resources.

The Lamb’s Supper, it is a GREAT book. It speaks about the book of Revelations and seeing the Liturgy in that book, it is not an apologetic work on the Eucharist.

If she is a non-denom, I’d go with David Currie “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic” or Jeff Cavin’s book “My Life on the Rock”.

I know you do not want to argue, but, for most evangelicals, the Bible is your first place to go. John chapter 6 is powerful, also the passage in 1 Cor 11 (RSV) bold mine. How can a symbol bring judgement and cause people to DIE?

20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. * 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32* But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened * so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- 34* if any one is hungry, let him eat at home–lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
 
kage_ar said:
Hey, former evangelical protestant here, raised by 2 generations of ministers even!

First question, what “brand” of protestant. It is a BIG pond, with many different beliefs and doctrines, so - to know what she claims will help point you in the way of resources.

The Lamb’s Supper, it is a GREAT book. It speaks about the book of Revelations and seeing the Liturgy in that book, it is not an apologetic work on the Eucharist.

If she is a non-denom, I’d go with David Currie “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic” or Jeff Cavin’s book “My Life on the Rock”.

I know you do not want to argue, but, for most evangelicals, the Bible is your first place to go. John chapter 6 is powerful, also the passage in 1 Cor 11 (RSV) bold mine. How can a symbol bring judgement and cause people to DIE?

20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. * 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32* But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened * so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- 34* if any one is hungry, let him eat at home–lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kel, well she says she’s Evangelical but has also mentioned being baptist. There you go – what over 1000 different sects of baptist alone?

Oh and get this, here’s one I won:

We were discussing discerning scripture and the constant split-offs in Protestant Churches often owed to arguing over simple lines in scripture and their application to today’s world. Or their meaning period.

I tell her how much I appreciate the Catechism – how it’s written and the scriptural meanings and their applications to todays societies by a group – or college of the most intelligent and schooled theologians of our times. Not to mention the Pope! (I step cautious near that with protestants because you bring up the Pope and they can defer to thinking you are a clueless sheep blindly following the Pope :rolleyes: ) But trying to write it here is difficult as my argument was animated and persuasive IRL 😛 . My point being “I feel much more trusting that each line of scripture is being discussed, hammered out and even argued over by a group of theologians rather than trusting the opinion of one man and his view of scripture any given Sunday, much less fighting with other Ministers and having churches split apart over these one-man-opinions. Let’s face it, a lot of scripture does not apply to today. It has to be retooled to fit. I’d rather it be done by a group of men trying to help their church collectively than by one man and his ego. What happens if he misleads his flock?”

She actually conceded to my argument there and asked to see the Catechism. 👍
 
kage_ar said:
Currie’s book would be great for a baptist/evangelical. Also, Steve Ray’s stuff www.catholic-convert.com
Click to expand...
You’re sitting there rolling your eyes at me aren’t you?

:rotfl:

I can’t give her stuff about conversion – DUDE – she would be so PO’d, as would I if she did it to me. NO, we have a way big respect system going for our respective beliefs.

I have to handle this one carefully.👍 Why? Because I absolutely adore her as a friend, AND a Christian. She’s amazing, she really is great!
 
I have a nice long explanation for you. I hope it fits.
Dinner with Jesus (literally?)
Code: 
“I am that bread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” - John 6:48-58.
Code: 
The claim by Roman Catholics is that Jesus gave his body and blood at the Last Supper, in the form of bread and wine, and continues to be present at every communion. It’s salt in theological boiling water. A majority of Christians claim that in John 6, Jesus is speaking metaphor (as he does at the Last Supper). Unlike his parables, which are stated once or twice, our Lord emphasizes himself as “the bread of life” over 5 times! After the Jews ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus does not recant or clarify but says, “Verily (truly) except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” 
The idea of eating and drinking Jesus’s body and blood must have sounded grotesque to the Jews and to his disciples. 
“These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said
unto them, Doth this offend you?” - John 6:59-61.
At this point, Jesus could have said, “You don’t understand, it was a metaphor.” He did not, letting his words linger until the Passover before his arrest and crucifixion. All of
the Gospels, apart from John, which contains the “Bread of Life” discourses, note theLast Supper.
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” - Matthew 26:26-28
From some viewpoints, Jesus is speaking of his suffering to come, when his body would be broken and his blood spilled. Indeed this implies his redeeming sacrifice, but also his grace and fellowship with the disciples. The Last Supper was an intimate
moment partaken with the Jesus’s closest friends (hence the term “Communion”).
Strangely, Jesus ends his supper with a command:
“This do in remembrance of me…” - Luke 22:19.
From that day, after the crucifixion of Christ, the custom of Christians is to hold Communion or The Lord’s Supper “In remembrance”:
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” -Acts 2:46
The Lord’s Supper acted as cement to hold the early church together in fellowship. In addition to Baptism, healing of the sick, and joining man and wife (Matthew 19:5), there was instituted the ordinance/sacrament of Communion. What was the nature of the
Lord’s Supper? Was it symbolic of the Lord’s sacrifice or a literal representation of this sacrifice and resulting forgiveness of sins?
“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” -1 Corinthians 11:24-26.
It remains obvious the Lord wanted the disciples to proclaim his great sacrifice in the Communion. He desired that the Church show his redeeming death until he comes again.
 
But the question remains, was Jesus present in the bread and wine, literally, Physically there? Again we turn to the Lord’s Supper as practiced in the Scriptures. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, abuses and irreverence towards the Communion are described:
“For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” -I Cor 11:21-22.
Moreover:
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” -1 Cor 11:27-29
The bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper is so revered that merely partaking in an unworthy/sinful state was considered self-damnation! That’s heavy punishment for just eating and drinking a meal the wrong way. Unless, in the bread and wine, there is the body and blood of God’s begotten son, the presence of Christ. The letter of Corinthians is perhaps most explicit in the meaning of Communion:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” - 1 Cor 10: 16-17.
The Lord’s Supper IS the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Interestingly early Christians saw it that way too.
“At this point bread is brought, with wine mixed with water to the president who accepted them and prayed offering up “praise and glory to the father of the universe, through the name of the Son and Holy Spirit” then giving thanks “for our being deemed worthy to recieve these things at his hands.
The bread and wine over which the thanksgiving has been said is distributed by the deacons, who later brought the bread and wine to those who could not be at the meeting. None is allowed to share unless he believes the things, which we teach are true and has been washed with the waters that bring the remission of sins and give second birth, and that lives as Christ ordered us to live. For we do not receive them as ordinary bread and wine- but as Jesus Christ our Savior.”
This account of the early Christian service is given by Justin Martyr, a presbyter (Pastor) who lived from 100-165 AD. It is dated to about 150 AD. Talk about early writings. Some of the earliest writings outside of the Bible portray Communion as involving the true body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers and a direct disciple of the Apostle John, mentions the Communion as "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. (wikipedia.org/ Eucharist).
What are the arguments against these views? That the Last Supper is metaphor (which has hopefully been disproved), that the Communion or Eucharist claims to sacrifice Christ over and over again, and that Jesus couldn’t possibly have meant for people to consume his flesh and blood.
Roman Catholics explain the Eucharist (from the Greek Eucharista “thanksgiving”) as a sacrifice, a pure and spotless offering.
“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” - Malachi 1:11.

I know this is a little more apologetic and technical but it has alot of Scripture verses,…and believe me as an ex-Protestant, it’s best to speak their language. 🙂
 
KCtheMommy said:
You’re sitting there rolling your eyes at me aren’t you?

:rotfl:

I can’t give her stuff about conversion – DUDE – she would be so PO’d, as would I if she did it to me. NO, we have a way big respect system going for our respective beliefs.

I have to handle this one carefully.👍 Why? Because I absolutely adore her as a friend, AND a Christian. She’s amazing, she really is great!
Click to expand...
No eye rolling - I swear!!

The conversion books are not an attempt to convert - they are someone who speaks the same language (believe me, evangelical -ese is a language that Cradle Cath’s don’t speak) explaining the differences.

If it will be that horrible :D, then try this.

www.catholicprotestant.com

The “Common Ground” Video. It was broadcast on TBN (the biggest evangelical TV network), and has a good study guide.

I’ll roll my eyes about fun stuff :cool:
 
latingirl said:
But the question remains, was Jesus present in the bread and wine, literally, Physically there?
Click to expand...
John 6:53-58 (New International Version) Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Not one word about symbolism. Not one reference to “belief”, “accepts”, “faith” or any of the usual references used when He spoke symbolically. Direct, declarative sentences that state you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. So direct and non-symbolic that many (perhaps most) of his disciples LEFT HIM! (John 6:66)

What did He do next? He instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. Read Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22. He took the bread, gave thanks, broke the bread and gave it to them, saying “Take and eat”, “Take and drink” “This IS my Body”. Not a hint of symbolism. As He prepared to ascend to the Father, He told them “I will be with you until the end of the age” How? In the Eucharist.

Note also that He was recognized in the breaking of the bread. In the feeding of the 4,000 (Matthew 15:36) and the 5,000 (Mark 6:41), they knew that a miracle had occurred. In both cases, the people were fed after Christ took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, then distributed it.

With the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30-31). They knew Him after He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them. He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. That was not symbolic - it was the true realization of the disciples, who immediately reported it to the Apostles.

Also, your evangelical friend needs to research the early Church and how they believed. Doing that has lead many home to the Catholic Church. Scott Hahn wrote perhaps the most well-known story of this in his conversion story:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1096019/posts

Christ’s peace and truth be with you.
 
Just a thought…

Have you ever considered inviting her to adoration? I’m converting to Catholicism, but I went to adoration with a good Catholic friend while I still disagreed with just about everything the Church teaches (or… at least… what i thought the Church teaches). Even as a protestant, I could not deny that there was something I didn’t understand going on during adoration. I’ve had several converts tell me the same thing.

It sounds like you’re being a very good witness to your friend! Keep it up!
 
Erica_Rae said:
Just a thought…

Have you ever considered inviting her to adoration? I’m converting to Catholicism, but I went to adoration with a good Catholic friend while I still disagreed with just about everything the Church teaches (or… at least… what i thought the Church teaches). Even as a protestant, I could not deny that there was something I didn’t understand going on during adoration. I’ve had several converts tell me the same thing.

It sounds like you’re being a very good witness to your friend! Keep it up!
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍 Just being in Christ’s presence has caused many conversions, even amongst those who believe we worship a mere piece of bread. Clearly, the Lord is present and at work in our hearts. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Prayers of intercession before our Savior in the Blessed Sacrament have been miraculously effective, in my experience.
 
Thanks po18guy. I should have been more clear in my note.Thanks for bringing to mind the story of Emmaus, I’ll have to work it in when I revise. 🙂
 
latingirl said:
Thanks po18guy. I should have been more clear in my note.Thanks for bringing to mind the story of Emmaus, I’ll have to work it in when I revise. 🙂
Click to expand...
Your friend’s ability to grasp the real presence of Christ is a grace from the Lord. Much as Peter received the grace to recognize that Jesus was the “Son of the living God”, it will take a similar grace for your friend to come face to face with Jesus in the Eucharist.

Ask your friend if they pray. Ask them if they pray for a long as an hour. If so, invite the friend to pray together with you - a holy hour of Adoration. Many graces are found in the Lord’s presence. It’s certainly worth a try, as you are building up treasure in Heaven for your efforts. Remember, the Lord rewards efforts, not necessarily results. Saint Paul “fought the good fight”. He never claimed to have won the good victory, only that he fought.

Christ’s peace be always with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top