How do Protestants regard Jesus's words "This is my body. Do this in memory of me"?

[GaryTaylor]

For myself, I believe in the Real Presence, and I could never wrap my head around the memorial only part. First of all, I don’t think it’s impossible for Jesus to hand out bread that is also his body in the first Eucharist. I don’t think anything is impossible for God. Second, the statement This Is, strikes me as being very much in line with the statement I Am.

Jesus didn’t say, this represents me, or this is only for my memory, this will be me in essence, this will contain me, he said This Is. Do This. In memory of Me. It’s Him, and a memorial of Him. Do I really grasp the metaphysical mechanism of how that works?

No. But I know it to be true.

The truth of the Real Presence is not dependent on my ability to understand it. And, thank God!

Summer

LOL, I hear you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Context” sounds symbolic, unless extreme reverence would interpret his words as literal. So, I’m still confused how you are interpreting “This is my body. do this in memory of me.”

I don’t see how it could be missed, 4-Gospels, St Paul plus Revelation. When John states:

“If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink His Blood, “you” have No-Life in you!”

I don’t see a vain attempt at a memorial service in that. Sounds like the Lord was absolutely serious about the Bread and Wine. …No-Life and memorial don’t equate, IMHO.

 

[JonNC]

=summer1052;9311523]
For myself, I believe in the Real Presence, and I could never wrap my head around the memorial only part. First of all, I don’t think it’s impossible for Jesus to hand out bread that is also his body in the first Eucharist. I don’t think anything is impossible for God. Second,** the statement This Is, strikes me as being very much in line with the statement I Am.**

Hadn’t thought of the bolded, but I like it.

Jesus didn’t say, this represents me, or this is only for my memory, this will be me in essence, this will contain me, he said This Is. Do This. In memory of Me. It’s Him, and a memorial of Him.

Do I really grasp the metaphysical mechanism of how that works?
No. But I know it to be true.

Now this is interesting, because this truly is the lutheran position on the metaphysics, whether described as Transubstantiation or consubstantiation. We choose to ignore it, leaving it to God. Hence, when Christ says, “this is…” we believe Him, and allow the miracle to stand as a mystery.

Protestantism as a whole, is a child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Skepticism. Therefore, the idea of a memorial only fits very tidily into the system. Protestants accept miracles, but they struggle with Mystery. I think it all magnifies the Glory of God! The truth of the Real Presence is not dependent on my ability to understand it. And, thank God!

Not all of us struggle with mystery, as I stated above. And you are right, the mystery does not depend on our ability to understand, or even whether or not one believes.

Good post!

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

or even whether or not one believes.

Isn’t that the Truth.

 

[Traverse]

For myself, I believe in the Real Presence, and I could never wrap my head around the memorial only part. First of all, I don’t think it’s impossible for Jesus to hand out bread that is also his body in the first Eucharist. I don’t think anything is impossible for God.
Summer

Though I do not believe in the real presence, I do agree with this sentiment. I’ve heard that argument before and have always thought it made little sense. You can’t say anything’s impossible for God or you’re arguing up the wrong tree.

For me the real presence doesn’t compute because it doesn’t really seem to serve any purpose (unless I am unaware of one). As you said, in the church of Christ the emphasis is on the memorial, but the emphasis is not ours. Christ said it was a memorial, and therefore that’s how we should treat it. Even if the real presence were accurate, the point is to be in remembrance. That’s the whole purpose of communion (please correct me if you think I’m wrong).

Furthermore, in a complete context of the instution of the Lord’s supper we see…

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.”
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Emphasis in the last sentence is mine. He refers to the cup as fruit of the vine again even after already describing it as blood. This seems to indicate that He is treating it like actual fruit of the vine and not actual blood.

I’d be interested in your opinions on this reasoning. Thanks.

 

[Nicea325]

Though I do not believe in the real presence, I do agree with this sentiment. I’ve heard that argument before and have always thought it made little sense. You can’t say anything’s impossible for God or you’re arguing up the wrong tree.

For me the real presence doesn’t compute because it doesn’t really seem to serve any purpose (unless I am unaware of one). As you said, in the church of Christ the emphasis is on the memorial, but the emphasis is not ours. Christ said it was a memorial, and therefore that’s how we should treat it. Even if the real presence were accurate, the point is to be in remembrance. That’s the whole purpose of communion (please correct me if you think I’m wrong).

Furthermore, in a complete context of the instution of the Lord’s supper we see…

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.”
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Emphasis in the last sentence is mine. He refers to the cup as fruit of the vine again even after already describing it as blood. This seems to indicate that He is treating it like actual fruit of the vine and not actual blood.

I’d be interested in your opinions on this reasoning. Thanks.

The RP does not seem to serve any purpose? If it is only symbolic it does not. That is like having a paper cut-out of a stake and paper cut-out of a cup and believe it will provide nutrients and heatlh to our bodies,if we eat them both. We both know it does not serve us as compared to the real stake and drink with real fluids. So the RP does serve us a lot and with real purpose.

 

[JonNC]

Though I do not believe in the real presence, I do agree with this sentiment. I’ve heard that argument before and have always thought it made little sense. You can’t say anything’s impossible for God or you’re arguing up the wrong tree.

For me the real presence doesn’t compute because it doesn’t really seem to serve any purpose (unless I am unaware of one). As you said, in the church of Christ the emphasis is on the memorial, but the emphasis is not ours. Christ said it was a memorial, and therefore that’s how we should treat it. Even if the real presence were accurate, the point is to be in remembrance. That’s the whole purpose of communion (please correct me if you think I’m wrong).

Furthermore, in a complete context of the instution of the Lord’s supper we see…

Mark 14:22-25
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.”
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Emphasis in the last sentence is mine. He refers to the cup as fruit of the vine again even after already describing it as blood. This seems to indicate that He is treating it like actual fruit of the vine and not actual blood.

I’d be interested in your opinions on this reasoning. Thanks.

The interchangeable use of blood/wine, body/bread is not unusual in scripture, and it doesn’t dispute Christ’s words that it is His body and His blood. For example, St. Paul says: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Paul, like Christ, is clear that the bread is His body, the cup is His blood.

Your interpretation seems to imply that Christ is walking back His statement that it is His blood. I don’t see that in His words at all.

Jon

 

[Traverse]

The interchangeable use of blood/wine, body/bread is not unusual in scripture, and it doesn’t dispute Christ’s words that it is His body and His blood. For example, St. Paul says: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Paul, like Christ, is clear that the bread is His body, the cup is His blood.

The only issue I have here is that Paul saying the bread and cup is a participating in the body and blood of Christ doesn’t really mean it’s not symbolically his body and blood. After all, the argument is not hard to make that participating in the memorial at all is participating in his body and blood.

Nicea325:

The RP does not seem to serve any purpose? If it is only symbolic it does not. That is like having a paper cut-out of a stake and paper cut-out of a cup and believe it will provide nutrients and heatlh to our bodies,if we eat them both. We both know it does not serve us as compared to the real stake and drink with real fluids. So the RP does serve us a lot and with real purpose.

This doesn’t make sense. Do you believe the real presence provides “nutrients” in some form? I have not seen that statement made anywhere and I’d certainly prefer you enlighten me than leave it vague. What I see in scripture is a need to partake in communion because it is a memorial feast so that we may remember Him and His sacrifice and that unless we are doing this and remembering Him and assembling together with brethren to partake then we are missing out on something really important and put our souls in jeopardy. If there is some element of RP beyond partaking in His memory than I’d suggest informing this non-catholic because there’s no reason I would have known in the first place.

 

[JonNC]

The only issue I have here is that Paul saying the bread and cup is a participating in the body and blood of Christ doesn’t really mean it’s not symbolically his body and blood. After all, the argument is not hard to make that participating in the memorial at all is participating in his body and blood.

What does He say we should do in remembrance of Him? He says, “Take and eat, his is my body…” He says, in memory of Him, we should eat His body and drink His blood.

As you know, Paul later tells us that to not discern is to eat and drink condemnation on oneself. I find it hard to imagine this level of warning for a symbolic memorial.
You say that Pauls words don’t really mean its not symbolic. Based on Christ’s words,and Paul’s followup, why do we have to work hard at finding reasons for it not to be what He says it is?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

The only issue I have here is that Paul saying the bread and cup is a participating in the body and blood of Christ doesn’t really mean it’s not symbolically his body and blood. After all, the argument is not hard to make that participating in the memorial at all is participating in his body and blood.

This doesn’t make sense. Do you believe the real presence provides “nutrients” in some form? I have not seen that statement made anywhere and I’d certainly prefer you enlighten me than leave it vague. What I see in scripture is a need to partake in communion because it is a memorial feast so that we may remember Him and His sacrifice and that unless we are doing this and remembering Him and assembling together with brethren to partake then we are missing out on something really important and put our souls in jeopardy. If there is some element of RP beyond partaking in His memory than I’d suggest informing this non-catholic because there’s no reason I would have known in the first place.

It makes perfect sense. Jesus gave us FULL Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity and it helps our…? Our belly? Think about it.

Yes scripture says to participate,but it also says: Take and eat…this IS my body. Likewise with his Blood. Why would Jesus say in John 6: 53,54:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, 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.

How can a symbolic Eucharist give eternal life as oppose to Jesus literal body,blood,soul and divinity?

Try reading this from Paul on spiritual wisdom from 1 Cor: 2:10-14

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God Bless

 

[Traverse]

As you know, Paul later tells us that to not discern is to eat and drink condemnation on oneself. I find it hard to imagine this level of warning for a symbolic memorial.
You say that Pauls words don’t really mean its not symbolic. Based on Christ’s words,and Paul’s followup, why do we have to work hard at finding reasons for it not to be what He says it is?

The context of that passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is a completely different context from recognizing the real presence.

1 Corinthians 11:22
What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

This was about people treating it as a common meal and not waiting for each other. I would agree that there is reverence and deep contemplation involved in remembering Christ’s sacrifice when one partakes of communion. I understand the point you’re making, but it is not an argument for real presence.

Nicea325:

It makes perfect sense. Jesus gave us FULL Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity and it helps our…? Our belly? Think about it.

I wasn’t saying the bread and fruit of the vine serve only to fill the belly. Why is it impossible for you to understand that partaking as part of a memorial, in remembrance of Christ, is somehow completely devoid of reverence and seriousness and thoughtful reflection if you take out literal body and blood? Now obviously you believe in the real presence and I understand your inclination to do so and, believing in the real presence, you’d obviously think there was much more to gain from communion than one who doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean the one who does not believe in the real presence also believes there is nothing to communion but checking off a tradition for the week (or as in some churches, the month or year) and moving on without any thought on the matter. What is spiritually given and spiritually received doesn’t have to be literal.

I am reminded of a passage in Romans that deals with another subject entirely.

Romans 6:4
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

You no doubt would agree that we are not literally in Christ’s tomb when we are baptized, but that we are spiritually buried with Him through the act of baptism. Likewise, I believe we spiritually partake of the body and blood of Christ, but in the physical sense the bread and vine remain as they are. I do not see how this conflicts with scripture, only how it conflicts with catholic tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

The context of that passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is a completely different context from recognizing the real presence.

1 Corinthians 11:22
What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

This was about people treating it as a common meal and not waiting for each other. I would agree that there is reverence and deep contemplation involved in remembering Christ’s sacrifice when one partakes of communion. I understand the point you’re making, but it is not an argument for real presence.

I wasn’t saying the bread and fruit of the vine serve only to fill the belly. Why is it impossible for you to understand that partaking as part of a memorial, in remembrance of Christ, is somehow completely devoid of reverence and seriousness and thoughtful reflection if you take out literal body and blood? Now obviously you believe in the real presence and I understand your inclination to do so and, believing in the real presence, you’d obviously think there was much more to gain from communion than one who doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean the one who does not believe in the real presence also believes there is nothing to communion but checking off a tradition for the week (or as in some churches, the month or year) and moving on without any thought on the matter. What is spiritually given and spiritually received doesn’t have to be literal.

I am reminded of a passage in Romans that deals with another subject entirely.

Romans 6:4
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

You no doubt would agree that we are not literally in Christ’s tomb when we are baptized, but that we are spiritually buried with Him through the act of baptism. Likewise, I believe we spiritually partake of the body and blood of Christ, but in the physical sense the bread and vine remain as they are. I do not see how this conflicts with scripture, only how it conflicts with catholic tradition.

Actually your interpretation is false in regards to 1 Cor. 11. Why would anyone be in serious jeopardy for a mere symbol? Pretty harsh words from Paul. And why is it mpossilbe for you to comprehend and understand God has no limits? If He chose to give Himself through bread and wine in order to give us eternal life,then so be it! Do you believe God is the Creator of the entire universe,but is not capable of giving His Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity through the two elements?

 

[Traverse]

I don’t believe God isn’t capable. Of course He’s capable. The question is whether or not He actually did. I never once said the concept of the real presence was impossible. Please don’t confuse my words.

Anyway, I explained why it’s you can put yourself in jeopardy by partaking improperly in the Lord’s supper even if it’s symbolic. If you’re not treating it as a memorial than you’re obviously doing it wrong. I understand where you’re coming from, but why can you not understand that even if it were symbolic that it’d still be horribly to disrespect a memorial to Christ?

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t believe God isn’t capable. Of course He’s capable. The question is whether or not He actually did. I never once said the concept of the real presence was impossible. Please don’t confuse my words.

Anyway, I explained why it’s you can put yourself in jeopardy by partaking improperly in the Lord’s supper even if it’s symbolic. If you’re not treating it as a memorial than you’re obviously doing it wrong. I understand where you’re coming from, but why can you not understand that even if it were symbolic that it’d still be horribly to disrespect a memorial to Christ?

I am sorry,but are you aware that the whole belief of a symbolic Eucharist did not really cause great stir until the Reformation? There is not one early church father who taught the Real Presence was false,heretical,novel or a great usurpation of Christ. Not one!

As for if God, if He did actually do it? You bet your marbles he did! Read the Gospel of John ch.6 and it is very clear. St.Paul also repeats Jesus’ words: EAT my flesh & DRINK my blood No where does Jesus say represents or is a mere symbol of me. If I am correct, Jesus could have easily used an Aramaic term or phrase to mean represents? But he does not.

God Bless you.

 

[JaKael02]

I wasn’t saying the bread and fruit of the vine serve only to fill the belly. Why is it impossible for you to understand that partaking as part of a memorial, in remembrance of Christ, is somehow completely devoid of reverence and seriousness and thoughtful reflection if you take out literal body and blood? Now obviously you believe in the real presence and I understand your inclination to do so and, believing in the real presence, you’d obviously think there was much more to gain from communion than one who doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean the one who does not believe in the real presence also believes there is nothing to communion but checking off a tradition for the week (or as in some churches, the month or year) and moving on without any thought on the matter. What is spiritually given and spiritually received doesn’t have to be literal.

I’ve been to a handful of Protestant services. None have given the reverence to the Holy Eucharist that Catholics do. There is quite a big difference between a service that renders it symbolic and a service that renders it literally.

In summary, it’s hard to notice the difference until you come home and start adoration to the Holy Eucharist via time spent in the Blessed Sacrament and Latin Mass.

When you do spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, then, then you realize the truth. I always advice spending time with an open heart and mind in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
God Bless,

james

 

[JaKael02]

Anyway, I explained why it’s you can put yourself in jeopardy by partaking improperly in the Lord’s supper even if it’s symbolic. If you’re not treating it as a memorial than you’re obviously doing it wrong. I understand where you’re coming from, but why can you not understand that even if it were symbolic that it’d still be horribly to disrespect a memorial to Christ?

I understand what your saying.

Please note the Holy Mass is a memorial…as well as a Re-presentation of Christ sacriface on the Cross to the Most Holy Father.

So you can come to Mass and still have your memorial while still partaking of the Real Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of your God.

W/ Love,

James

 

[Traverse]

Oh jeez, Nicea, you just have to quote that when I make a grammatical error. The shame!

John chapter 6 is probably the most compelling argument for the real presence that I’ve been privy to, but on its surface it really is just “Jesus says some things and some people freak out” which doesn’t necessarily mean He’s teaching the real presence. There’s no reason to assume it isn’t metaphor there, just as it is metaphor many other times Christ speaks.

You are likely more aware of the writings of the church fathers than I, but I remind you that those writings, being not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the writings are in sacred scripture, are not significant evidence of your claim. Furthermore, while I can’t vouch for accuracy, I have seen assorted claims that some church fathers didn’t agree with the concept of real presence and understood it as metaphorical and that there were debates on the real presence long before the reformation.

I’ve been to a handful of Protestant services. None have given the reverence to the Holy Eucharist that Catholics do. There is quite a big difference between a service that renders it symbolic and a service that renders it literally.

In summary, it’s hard to notice the difference until you come home and start adoration to the Holy Eucharist via time spent in the Blessed Sacrament and Latin Mass.

When you do spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, then, then you realize the truth. I always advice spending time with an open heart and mind in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

I agree! I’ve seen many services where it’s not very reverent. It’s almost casual. I’d agree that is not the correct way to go about it.

I’ve been in attendance at a catholic mass twice now, but aside from the belief in the real presence it has been no more reverent in appearance than the service at the church I attend. Although, the time spent on it was longer and I think that is to the credit of the mass rather than to its detriment. It was interesting to witness all the same.

 

[JonNC]

=Traverse;9323680]The context of that passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is a completely different context from recognizing the real presence.

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, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.”f 25In the same way also he took 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.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. **29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body **eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.g 31But if we judgedh ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplinedi so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

What other context is there? Paul says he delivers to us what he received from Christ.
He says we must discern the body.

I wasn’t saying the bread and fruit of the vine serve only to fill the belly. Why is it impossible for you to understand that partaking as part of a memorial, in remembrance of Christ, is somehow completely devoid of reverence and seriousness and thoughtful reflection if you take out literal body and blood?

My only comment here is, what does Christ tell us to do in remembrance of Him? Eat and drink. Eat and drink what? His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Traverse:

John chapter 6 is probably the most compelling argument for the real presence that I’ve been privy to, but on its surface it really is just “Jesus says some things and some people freak out” which doesn’t necessarily mean He’s teaching the real presence. There’s no reason to assume it isn’t metaphor there, just as it is metaphor many other times Christ speaks.

I am sorry,but believe you are taking His words way to lightly. He was teaching the RP because even the Jews made the remark that would need to EAT His Flesh in order to have eternal life. So yes ,in essence they were freaking out! Yes Jesus used methapor’s all the time but He also explained and corrected people when they misunderstood. Guess what? He does NOT waiver His teaching on the RP or tell the people they are misunderstanding Him. Remember, we are talking about our salvation and I seriously doubt Jesus’ wanted people to second guess Him on a particular teaching.

If Jesus truly taught a symbolic Eucharist,then why did he fail to tell His disciples He really did not mean for them to understand Him as being literal? Why let those disciples walk away,if it only was symbolic?

You are likely more aware of the writings of the church fathers than I, but I remind you that those writings, being not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the writings are in sacred scripture, are not significant evidence of your claim.

I beg your pardon? They are not significant? Then name the other sources outside the NT which are significant?

Furthermore, while I can’t vouch for accuracy, I have seen assorted claims that some church fathers didn’t agree with the concept of real presence and understood it as metaphorical and that there were debates on the real presence long before the reformation.

Really? Name ONE ECF who didn’t agree with the RP?

 

[JonNC]

Really? Name ONE ECF who didn’t agree with the RP?

Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so?​

Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” -Luther

None, Nicea, none.

Jon