M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Someone told me that just like Christ being both God and Man which are to opposites the Eucharist could be both Symbolic (non-real precence) and Real. How should I responed? Thanks and God bless.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Trelow
Guest
I’d say AMEN! It is highly symbolic as well as the real prescence of Christ Jesus.Someone told me that just like Christ being both God and Man which are to opposites the Eucharist could be both Symbolic (non-real precence) and Real. How should I responed? Thanks and God bless.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
The Euchrist is real and symbolic. It IS the body and blood of Christ, and it symbolizes Christ’s death on the cross. I don’t see how saying that Jesus is God plus Man could compare to the Euchrist being not the real presence. That statment makes no sense to me. But the Real Presence in the Euchrist couldn’t be any clearer in Scripture. I see it clearer than Christ being God in the flesh.
Perhaps someone else can help more.
Perhaps someone else can help more.
C
corvidae
Guest
I believe it is called an efficacious symbol. It is a symbol that is what it symbolizes. For example, if a stop sign actually stopped. Or forced a stop.
It would be a symbol that brings about what it symbolizes. But no one denies that it is a symbol, The reason the Real Presence is argued, is because it is what is denied.
The Church does not define doctrine untill it is challenged, and because this is challenged, we hear about it more.
A lone Raven
It would be a symbol that brings about what it symbolizes. But no one denies that it is a symbol, The reason the Real Presence is argued, is because it is what is denied.
The Church does not define doctrine untill it is challenged, and because this is challenged, we hear about it more.
A lone Raven
J
JPrejean
Guest
Good question!
The important thing to remember is that distinction is not opposition. God and man are different from one another, but that does not make them opposites, which would simply be treating God as just another mundane object. Instead, God is the transcendent Creator in Whom we live and move and have our being.
The first thing to clear up is that God and man aren’t opposites. Man is made in the image and likeness of God, for example, so there is a true resemblance between God and man. They are different, but they are not contraries of one another, so they can come together in harmony (and human and divine natures do just that in Christ). That is much like the Eucharist. The symbolic value of the Eucharist does not detract from its reality.Someone told me that just like Christ being both God and Man which are to opposites the Eucharist could be both Symbolic (non-real precence) and Real.
The important thing to remember is that distinction is not opposition. God and man are different from one another, but that does not make them opposites, which would simply be treating God as just another mundane object. Instead, God is the transcendent Creator in Whom we live and move and have our being.
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Let me try again. What my aunt was saying was,I don’t see how saying that Jesus is God plus Man could compare to the Euchrist being not the real presence. That statment makes no sense to me. But the Real Presence in the Euchrist couldn’t be any clearer in Scripture. I see it clearer than Christ being God in the flesh.
Perhaps someone else can help more.
Is this any clearer?it is contradictary to say Jesus is God and Man. That if you are God than you are not a man and if you are a man you are not God (sort of like Bush is a Repulican and a Democrat). Two things that are contradictions but still are. So the Eucharist contains both the Real Presence and does not contain the Real presence.
What should I say?
T
Trelow
Guest
IMHO, I’d ask her if she professes to know more than 2000 years of consistent christian teaching, if she says “yes” I’d offer to refill her prescription.What should I say?
L
Liberian
Guest
Montie,
God is not the opposite of men. God is one sort of being; people are a different sort of being. They are not contradictory to each other.
On the other hand, Real Presence and non-Real Presence are mutually contradictory. The analogy to the two Natures of Jesus does not hold.
This does not mean that the Eucharist is empty of symbolism. The unity of the bread that is broken, for example, symbolizes the unity of the Church, as does the unity of the chalice from which we all receive. (I realize this doesn’t always happen this way, but it’s supposed to.)
God is not the opposite of men. God is one sort of being; people are a different sort of being. They are not contradictory to each other.
On the other hand, Real Presence and non-Real Presence are mutually contradictory. The analogy to the two Natures of Jesus does not hold.
This does not mean that the Eucharist is empty of symbolism. The unity of the bread that is broken, for example, symbolizes the unity of the Church, as does the unity of the chalice from which we all receive. (I realize this doesn’t always happen this way, but it’s supposed to.)
- Liberian
- Status
- Not open for further replies.