Does the Catholic Church teach Communion is a symbol in any circumstance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tifischer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tifischer

Guest
I went to the children’s liturgy of the word today and a lady taught the children that the Holy Communion is a symbol and she said it two or three times. I disagreed with her openly. Then went to talk to a wonderful woman who is very spiritual and works for the Church, who was standing outside of the class (she lets Children’s Liturgy know when its time to return to the mass). After the children had left I asked the other lady to come talk too so that we could clear this up but she refused. To my surprise the lady who works at the Church tried to defend her saying that she is teaching them appropriately for their age. I said a symbol by definition is a representation of something that is not really what it symbolizes. Thus to say that the Holy Communion is a symbol of God would by definition deny that the Holy Communion is the real presence of God. In discussing the Body and Blood of Jesus (feast day of Corpus Christi) the teacher repeatedly said that in the Holy Communion is bread and wine are symbols of God’s body and blood. If she could not explain it such that a mother in her 30’s (somewhat recent convert) could understand what she is saying, then how is she to expect that children may understand? I teach my children that the bread and wine are changed by God so that it is the body and blood of Jesus. I do not indicate that this is symbolic but recall the scripture that it is not the flesh that gives life but the Spirit. So, what am I doing wrong?

Blessings!
 
You aren’t doing anything wrong. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the body and blood of Christ. This is a basic Catholic teaching, and it is usually emphasized on the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ (Corpus Christi). It’s perhaps not so easily understood by younger children, but if they are to understand it, it ought to first be understood by their Catholic teacher.
 
The Real Presence is a potential difficulty to understand because of its simplicity, not because of its complexity. Adults are the ones that have trouble understanding, not children.

Jesus says, “this is my body, this is my blood”. We see before us a host with all the observable properties of bread, and chalice containing all of the observable properties of wine, but it is the body and blood of Christ, i.e. “the hidden mana” of Revelation, the Supper of the Lamb.

A 3-year-old will sit at a table, pick up a piece of yellow plastic and say, “Have some cheese!” Trust me, kids have zero problem understanding the Real Presence. Children are wise. If they understand that God can do anything, they’ll be able to understanding the Real Presence. That’s the extent of theological knowledge you need in order to believe in the Real Presence.

Most children aren’t able to effectively wrap their brain around the concept of “symbols” until 3rd or 4th grade. It has very limited use in an academic curriculum before that.
 
tifischer said:
I went to the children’s liturgy of the word today and a lady taught the children that the Holy Communion is a symbol and she said it two or three times. I disagreed with her openly. Then went to talk to a wonderful woman who is very spiritual and works for the Church, who was standing outside of the class (she lets Children’s Liturgy know when its time to return to the mass). After the children had left I asked the other lady to come talk too so that we could clear this up but she refused. To my surprise the lady who works at the Church tried to defend her saying that she is teaching them appropriately for their age. I said a symbol by definition is a representation of something that is not really what it symbolizes. Thus to say that the Holy Communion is a symbol of God would by definition deny that the Holy Communion is the real presence of God. In discussing the Body and Blood of Jesus (feast day of Corpus Christi) the teacher repeatedly said that in the Holy Communion is bread and wine are symbols of God’s body and blood. If she could not explain it such that a mother in her 30’s (somewhat recent convert) could understand what she is saying, then how is she to expect that children may understand? I teach my children that the bread and wine are changed by God so that it is the body and blood of Jesus. I do not indicate that this is symbolic but recall the scripture that it is not the flesh that gives life but the Spirit. So, what am I doing wrong?

It is very good that you were concerned about the explanation to the children!

I am so grateful for my pastor who never talked down to us from first grade on (Catechism in the forties) and it made a great impression on me. Children are capable of understanding correct theology, and he taught us many other important things as well. There was no Catholic school at our parish and he, mainly, with the help of some tired but willing housewives, taught us what we needed to know for a better understanding of the “bigger picture”. (Our pastor expounded on the Catechism, and more, for 1/2 hour, … after 1/2 hour of our teachers going over the questions and answers with us children.)

Blessings!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Dorothy:
Sorry, post #4 was formatted wrong by me.

My response starts after the OP explains what happened.
 
(name removed by moderator),

Thank you for your theologically correct response! I wouldn’t have known how to explain like that.
 
A sign is not the same thing as a symbol. A symbol by definition is not what it represents, otherwise it would be a metaphor. A sign may or may not be what it represents because it is not a grammatical technique, it is something that signifies a meaning…regardless of if it does so as an analogy, metaphor, a symbol or some other form of speech. I am not really fond of the idea of fitting the body and blood into a grammatical meaning beyond that the body and blood IS Jesus. To try to understand it in a grammatical sense would only detract form the reality of transubstantiation…that God has really changed the bread and wine because not one grammatical technique that I can think of alludes to the fact that the object really is what it is said to be because it changed.

If the bread were a symbol of anything it would have to be a symbol of manna. The comparison of manna to Jesus would be symbolic…manna is a symbol of bread from heaven. Jesus is not a symbol of bread from heaven, He is bread from heaven. Anyone who eats bread as a symbol of Jesus would be more accurate to call it manna than Jesus. The wine of the passover of Moses were symbols. If anyone drinks wine as a symbol of God saving them, then they are celebrating the Jewish passover of Moses’ time…they are celebrating the cup of Moses’ passover. The wine at passover at the time of Jesus was already a symbol of Moses’ passover, why would Jesus say this is new if it were the same symbol of God saves? Unless, it really is His blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…then it would have to be something different, really God’s blood saves and not a symbol of God saves with Lambs blood anymore. To eat bread and drink wine as a symbol would be the Jewish tradition of Moses’ exodus. To eat bread and wine after it has been transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus is Christianity.
 
I really don’t agree. The bread and wine are transsubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ during the Consecration. They do not remain merely accidents or signs but change during the Consecration and become more than they were before. Though this is not apparent in any empirical sense, it is nevertheless real. The best way I could explain this simply would be that the “body and blood of Christ” can be bread and wine. Is this not what Catholics believe of the Eucharist? The difficulty is in leaving small children with the impression the host is only a symbol or sign.
 
I am sorry but the definition of a symbol is not my opinion that I may “think is true” and “fix blame on”, it is a fact. I goggled a clear definition that I will gladly share with the other thread too.

Symbol -A person, place, action, word, or thing that (by association, resemblance, or convention) represents something other than itself. Verb: symbolize. Adjective: symbolic. (grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/symbolterm.htm)

Metaphor - A trope or figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common. Adjective: metaphorical. (grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm)

So, you see in grammar if the object that is being compared represents something other than itself then it is a symbol…otherwise the compared objects are similar sharing some characteristics but are not identical in nature…they may be said to be “like” one another and called a metaphor. Clearly Jesus is something else, neither symbol nor metaphor by definition. The bread is changed so that in Holy Communion it is Jesus’ body we serve and no longer bread although the elements of bread may still exist as a sign.
 
If the bread were a symbol of anything it would have to be a symbol of manna. The comparison of manna to Jesus would be symbolic…manna is a symbol of bread from heaven. Jesus is not a symbol of bread from heaven, He is bread from heaven. Anyone who eats bread as a symbol of Jesus would be more accurate to call it manna than Jesus. The wine of the passover of Moses were symbols. If anyone drinks wine as a symbol of God saving them, then they are celebrating the Jewish passover of Moses’ time…they are celebrating the cup of Moses’ passover. The wine at passover at the time of Jesus was already a symbol of Moses’ passover, why would Jesus say this is new if it were the same symbol of God saves? Unless, it really is His blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…then it would have to be something different, really God’s blood saves and not a symbol of God saves with Lambs blood anymore. To eat bread and drink wine as a symbol would be the Jewish tradition of Moses’ exodus. To eat bread and wine after it has been transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus is Christianity.
Click to expand...
After reviewing the definitions it would be more accurate to say…

If the bread in communion were a symbol of anything it would have to be a symbol of manna. The comparison of manna to Jesus would be symbolic…manna is a metaphor of bread (nourishment of flesh) from heaven (sky) because it did not sustain life…those who ate manna died. Jesus is not a metaphor of bread from heaven, He is bread (nourishment of life) from heaven (heaven) giving eternal life. Anyone who eats bread as a symbol of Jesus would be more accurate to call it manna than Jesus. The wine of the passover of Moses were symbols. If anyone drinks wine as a symbol of God saving them, then they are celebrating the Jewish passover of Moses’ time…they are celebrating the cup of Moses’ passover. The wine at passover at the time of Jesus was already a symbol of Moses’ passover, why would Jesus say this is new if it were the same symbol of God saves? Unless, it really is His blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…then it would have to be something different, really God’s blood saves and not a symbol of God saves with Lambs blood anymore. To eat bread and drink wine as a symbol would be the Jewish tradition of Moses’ exodus. To eat bread and wine after it has been transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus is Christianity.
 
Ok, you could not grammatically say that eating the bread and wine is a symbol of consuming the body and blood of Christ because you really are consuming the body and blood of Christ…a symbol of consuming God could be an image of a happy mouth…because it is not actually eating the Body and Blood of Jesus. A symbol of consuming God would be like eating bread at home that was not actually changed into Jesus body. A sign could be some imagery such as accidents of bread and wine in the Holy Communion. However, we believe that the whole host is changed whether you can see it or not, thus what you see is not always what you get. And if anyone is seeing the bread and wine when they are consuming the Holy Communion maybe their heart is not in the best place…He wants us to see Him. I have heard of people with greater faith over lesser of things.

Thanks be to God I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church "1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”206 Now that’s not a symbol…by definition. Transubstantiation is not a symbol, it is a real change. A child growing into an adult is not a symbol of aging, it really is aging. A change happens in Holy Communion thus it is not a symbol, it is 100% changed to Jesus.
 
tifischer said:
Ok, you could not grammatically say that eating the bread and wine is a symbol of consuming the body and blood of Christ because you really are consuming the body and blood of Christ…a symbol of consuming God could be an image of a happy mouth…because it is not actually eating the Body and Blood of Jesus. A metaphor of consuming God would be like eating bread at home that was not actually changed into Jesus body. A sign could be some imagery such as accidents of bread and wine in the Holy Communion. However, we believe that the whole host is changed whether you can see it or not, thus what you see is not always what you get. And if anyone is seeing the bread and wine when they are consuming the Holy Communion maybe their heart is not in the best place…He wants us to see Him. I have heard of people with greater faith over lesser of things.

Thanks be to God I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church "1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”206 Now that’s not a symbol…by definition. Transubstantiation is not a symbol, it is a real change. A child growing into an adult is not a symbol of aging, it really is aging. A change happens in Holy Communion thus it is not a symbol, it is 100% changed to Jesus.

Just sayin’ grammatically it’s not right to call the bread and wine a symbol if you believe that it is changed to the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Theological language is not bound by definitions one might find in a secular dictionary. The use of the term “symbol” in sacramental theology and in liturgical studies is broader than the use of the term “symbol” as generally defined.
 
RyanBlack said:
Theological language is not bound by definitions one might find in a secular dictionary. The use of the term “symbol” in sacramental theology and in liturgical studies is broader than the use of the term “symbol” as generally defined.
Click to expand...
Did you not read the Catechism of the Catholic church? In your case then you may need to create a new dictionary to redefine symbol and then tell Ancient Rome sorry they changed the meaning of symbol as it originated from the Latin word symbolum “creed, token, mark,” meaning representations of something other than what it is…and be careful not to be called a hypocrite for getting upset because people are trying to change the word Matrimony to mean a man taking a man to be his wife to have children?..because it also originates from Latin Matrimonium that translates to mean acting of a man taking a woman as a wife so that she may become a mother…the meaning in Roman times carried more emphasis on producing families than we realize today in our culture.
 
tifischer said:
I went to the children’s liturgy of the word today and a lady taught the children that the Holy Communion is a symbol and she said it two or three times. I disagreed with her openly. Then went to talk to a wonderful woman who is very spiritual and works for the Church, who was standing outside of the class (she lets Children’s Liturgy know when its time to return to the mass). After the children had left I asked the other lady to come talk too so that we could clear this up but she refused. To my surprise the lady who works at the Church tried to defend her saying that she is teaching them appropriately for their age. I said a symbol by definition is a representation of something that is not really what it symbolizes. Thus to say that the Holy Communion is a symbol of God would by definition deny that the Holy Communion is the real presence of God. In discussing the Body and Blood of Jesus (feast day of Corpus Christi) the teacher repeatedly said that in the Holy Communion is bread and wine are symbols of God’s body and blood. If she could not explain it such that a mother in her 30’s (somewhat recent convert) could understand what she is saying, then how is she to expect that children may understand? I teach my children that the bread and wine are changed by God so that it is the body and blood of Jesus. I do not indicate that this is symbolic but recall the scripture that it is not the flesh that gives life but the Spirit. So, what am I doing wrong?

Blessings!
Click to expand...
May she just misconstrued the concept of Sacraments as outwards SIGNS of inward realities. 😛
 
choliks said:
May she just misconstrued the concept of Sacraments as outwards SIGNS of inward realities. 😛
Click to expand...
Quite possible. I think that it is never too early to teach children the reality of Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist. Heck, I understood it in the 2nd grade–Jesus whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine. If you confuse them at a young age they will have to relearn it for sacramental preparation.
 
That’s fair. I think what is said in the post you provided is that while the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, the bread and wine also present symbolic meaning. In other words, the bread and wine Christ chose to use for the transsubstantiation during the Last Supper have symbolic meaning in themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top