Eucharist a Symbol? Can you believe this Professor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jennifer_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fluffy, cotton candy.

The only citation was a couple bytes of St. Augustine, context lacking of course.

I understand that the Eucharist is an objective reality. Which means Christ is present regardless of whether we think so or not. So it’s not just bread and wine to Protestants, they fail to believe in what is objective reality.

He’s diluting the Truth down to something his feable, enlightened mind can wrap around. But that’s like putting pizza in a blender because you’re jaw is wired shut. You can now suck it through a straw, but it ain’t pizza anymore. Sure I can follow his explanation and it doesn’t blow my mind, but what he’s trying to shove down us isn’t the real thing.
 
Why does it always seem to take academics so many words to express their unbelief? Sounds like she has spent most of her time meditating upon the Eucharist in the form of ways of avoiding calling it what the Church calls it: the Body and Blood of Christ himself. In this lady’s case, “education” was the ruin of her faith. How sad! 😦
 
In his book “Letters to a Young Catholic” (which is a worthwhile read for even older Catholics), George Weigel writes of a conversation between Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor, and erstwhile-Catholic arts maven Mary McCarthy, as recounted by O’Connor:

“I was once…taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy…She departed the Church at age 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn’t opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now-wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend…(McCarthy) said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the “most portable” person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.’’’

This “Professor” obviously isn’t the first of the ilk, and one of the great advantages Catholics have is that the nonsense that often comes from acedemia does not come from the Magisterium, and is not binding on the faithful.

To receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a gift of unimaginable proportions. The only thing that is more unimaginable is to reject the grace that accompanies this gift by consigning it to the category of a mere symbol. Go figure.

Blessings,

Gerry
 

The Eucharist is indeed a symbol - that was spot-on.​

Not just that, certainly, but that among other things. She did not say it was a “mere” symbol - she went out of her way to say that the moden way of thinking which thinks of symbols as “mere” symbols, is an impoverishment, compared to past thinking.

With a little generosity of interpretation, everything in that first essay can be understood in a completely orthodox way.

“Generosity of interpretation” is not, BTW, a wimpy liberal modern invention 🙂 - St. Thomas practices it, when a Father says something that is a bit iffy on the surface, but capable of being taken in an innocent sense.

Why is it so offensive to hear the Eucharist called a symbol ? I think folk-memories of the Reformation are involved here, so that people are unduly sensitive to the possibility of error, so see it where it is not. That’s just my guess ##
 
This is very dangerous “New Age” thinking. Everyting is love, we are one with Nature and we will be Gods. :whacky:

Jesus institutes the words of consecration himself at the last supper–the same words priests use today, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this (what he just DID) in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after supper saying,“This is the cup which is poured out for ou is the new covenant in my blood.”

As for the reality of the Eucharist, John 6:32-69 says it all. John 6:53-55 summarizes it best: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” No equivocating here. Just straight up truth.

Did the apostles believe this? :hmmm: 1 CORR 11:29 “Who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Matt 26:26 “Take and eat, this is my body.” Mark 14:22,24 “this is my body…this is my blood of the covenant.”
Luke 22:19-20 “this is my body, which will be given for you…new covenant in my blood.”

👍 Lindalou
 
Calling the Eucharist a symbol was not what was offensive. Catholics are aware the the Sacraments are both symbol & real. What was offensive was saying the if someone doesn’t believe in the Eucharist (Real Presence) then that particular Host is not Jesus therefore there is no reason to refuse communion to non-catholics. This is similar to the mistaken opinion that Jesus is not present in the tabernacle unless someone is in the church building. This is offensive because someone who receives communion in those circumstances is insulting God.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## The Eucharist is indeed a symbol - that was spot-on.

Not just that, certainly, but that among other things. She did not say it was a “mere” symbol - she went out of her way to say that the moden way of thinking which thinks of symbols as “mere” symbols, is an impoverishment, compared to past thinking.

With a little generosity of interpretation, everything in that first essay can be understood in a completely orthodox way.

“Generosity of interpretation” is not, BTW, a wimpy liberal modern invention 🙂 - St. Thomas practices it, when a Father says something that is a bit iffy on the surface, but capable of being taken in an innocent sense.

Why is it so offensive to hear the Eucharist called a symbol ? I think folk-memories of the Reformation are involved here, so that people are unduly sensitive to the possibility of error, so see it where it is not. That’s just my guess ##
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t it just be more accurate (and succinct) to say “The Eucharist is Jesus Christ complete, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity”?
 
40.png
RBushlow:
Wouldn’t it just be more accurate (and succinct) to say “The Eucharist is Jesus Christ complete, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity”?
Click to expand...

It would certainly be more succinct 🙂 - but it would also leave out a great deal of the significance of the Eucharist 🙂 .​

The Eucharist is a sign - it sign-ifies: that is part of the meaning & function of a sacrament.

Not only is it a sign, but it has ethical implications - “Holy things for the holy”. So our lives ought to be holy, and we should become the Food that we eat. So it has implications for our dealings with our neighbours - which reinforces the importance of social justice.

Because it is what it is, it has countless implications for every corner of our lives. We cannot eat this Gift, and remain unchanged. This is a Food that affects the Church as intimately, and far-reachingly, as can well be imagined. It’s explosive stuff 🙂 ##
 
What a bunch of junk. I bet she also believes that the Gospels didn’t happen and there were no Adam & Eve!!! 😃

CM
 
carol marie:
What a bunch of junk. I bet she also believes that the Gospels didn’t happen and there were no Adam & Eve!!! 😃

CM
Click to expand...
almost guarenteed!!! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top