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

[tqualey]

Hi, Lincoln7,

Now, let me get this straight. I quote the Words of Christ and you refute these Words with the Westminster Confession? Please note, no one can chew, gnaw or bite something that is ‘spiritual’. Christ is quite clear - and this is apparently dismissed. Is this what you are telling me?

Actually, you are telling me more with this reference. This 17th Century document (pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxvi-xxx.htm#chapxxix) flys right in the face of Christ’s Own Words.

"2.** In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration **of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

1. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people;** to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart **from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
2. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
3. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, ***they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. ***

So, if I underestand this correctly, Christ lied! These men clearly are saying that He did not do what He said He was going to do in John 6 and in the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Additionally, like the Jews in John 6, they reject what He said as a ‘hard saying’ and have crafted one more to their own interests.

If I have misquoted from this document, please let me know. If I have quoted it correctly, just how does this not call Christ a liar by Him claiming to do what He did not do.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

The view I espouse is laid down in the Westminster confessions:
Part of it:

1. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,(1) do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.(2)
   (1) 1 Cor 11:28
   (2) 1 Cor 10:16; 1 Cor 10:3-4

I believe in the true presence, but do not hold to transubstantiation. One feeds on him “really and indeed”, but as I’ve said, it is not viewed as a corporal presence. So the John passage, whilst not directly a speaking on the Eucharist by the Lord, does still have a great deal to say to us about it.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Nicea325]

That’s still irrelevant though. It’s interesting reading and history, but you can’t use it to preach doctrine any more than you’d take a bible commentary and use it as infallible doctrine rather than as a guide.

Of course it is irrelevant when it goes against one’s traditions and beliefs. Irrelevant to you because of your lack of knowledge and comprehension of their works. Second, I never said they were used to preach doctrine,but were written in defense of orthodox doctrines which says a lot. Third, the first Christians only heard preaching from the mouths of the Apostles on doctrine,they were not reading NT material to them.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Lincoln7,

Now, let me get this straight. I quote the Words of Christ and you refute these Words with the Westminster Confession? Please note, no one can chew, gnaw or bite something that is ‘spiritual’. Christ is quite clear - and this is apparently dismissed. Is this what you are telling me?

Actually, you are telling me more with this reference. This 17th Century document (pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxvi-xxx.htm#chapxxix) flys right in the face of Christ’s Own Words.

"2.** In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration **of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.

1. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people;** to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart **from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
2. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
3. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, ***they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. ***

So, if I underestand this correctly, Christ lied! These men clearly are saying that He did not do what He said He was going to do in John 6 and in the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Additionally, like the Jews in John 6, they reject what He said as a ‘hard saying’ and have crafted one more to their own interests.

If I have misquoted from this document, please let me know. If I have quoted it correctly, just how does this not call Christ a liar by Him claiming to do what He did not do.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

It is called spiritual pride. Amazing how not ONE non-Catholic I have met has questioned God’s ability to give light,life,etc and incarnate as a man;however, the Real Presence is simply somethin He did not do or say. And why? Because it does not jive with the notion of a symbolic Eucharist.

 

[Lincoln7]

tqualey,

Now, let me get this straight. I quote the Words of Christ and you refute these Words with the Westminster Confession? Please note, no one can chew, gnaw or bite something that is ‘spiritual’. Christ is quite clear - and this is apparently dismissed. Is this what you are telling me?

No, we simply disagree on the meaning of The Lords words.

So, if I underestand this correctly, Christ lied! These men clearly are saying that He did not do what He said He was going to do in John 6 and in the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Additionally, like the Jews in John 6, they reject what He said as a ‘hard saying’ and have crafted one more to their own interests.

Again, we differ on what the Lord means. I don’t really want to get into a “that’s your interpretation” debate, as they are endless… I simply wanted to demonstrate not all Protestants hold to a more zwinglian view of the Eucharist.

If I have misquoted from this document, please let me know. If I have quoted it correctly, just how does this not call Christ a liar by Him claiming to do what He did not do.

You have quoted it fine. It simply doesn’t think that Christ means exactly what you do. Again, I hold to the true presence, but that doesn’t automatically mean transubstantiation.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

It is called spiritual pride. Amazing how not ONE non-Catholic I have met has questioned God’s ability to give light,life,etc and incarnate as a man;however, the Real Presence is simply somethin He did not do or say. And why? Because it does not jive with the notion of a symbolic Eucharist.

Woah Nicea, seems a tad harsh… I follow the view I do out of genuine conviction.

Lincs

 

[Nicea325]

Woah Nicea, seems a tad harsh… I follow the view I do out of genuine conviction.

Lincs

Is it really harsh Linc? Did not God call the Jews “stiff-necked” people? Stubbornness and prideful attitude was part of their wayward side. The Pharisees and Sadducees had the same attitude.

I am not trying to be mean,but pride does exist my friend, including spiritual pride.

 

[Lincoln7]

Is it really harsh Linc? Did not God call the Jews “stiff-necked” people? Stubbornness and prideful attitude was part of their wayward side. The Pharisees and Sadducees had the same attitude.

I am not trying to be mean,but pride does exist my friend, including spiritual pride.

Yes it does, but I think when both sides throw such sentiments against one another, we cause nout but said stubbornness and impede discussion. I could well say the same about the CC, but I won’t, issues, not people should Surley be what’s discussed on here?

So to bring it back, I’m a believer in the presence and a feeding upon Christ. I don’t however see it in terms of transubstantiation. As a simple statement of my position (not a rigorous defence of it); I take the words “this is my body” as a more metaphorical phrase. The bread and wine are the signs, the body and blood of Jesus Christ the signified. We can’t separate the two, but must distinguish between them. So, to the faith of true believers in this sacrament, they partake of bread and wine, but spiritually they feed upon Jesus Christ. It’s all about faith in my tradition… To quote Augustine

1. In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew*5:8

• newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Nicea325]

Yes it does, but I think when both sides throw such sentiments against one another, we cause nout but said stubbornness and impede discussion. I could well say the same about the CC, but I won’t, issues, not people should Surley be what’s discussed on here?

So to bring it back, I’m a believer in the presence and a feeding upon Christ. I don’t however see it in terms of transubstantiation. As a simple statement of my position (not a rigorous defence of it); I take the words “this is my body” as a more metaphorical phrase. The bread and wine are the signs, the body and blood of Jesus Christ the signified. We can’t separate the two, but must distinguish between them. So, to the faith of true believers in this sacrament, they partake of bread and wine, but spiritually they feed upon Jesus Christ. It’s all about faith in my tradition… To quote Augustine

• newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Kind regards

Lincs

Linc, but you are forgetting something, the CC is not the one denying the RP and neither did the early church. Many Protestants and fundamentalist are the ones making a claim against what the early church taught,thus questioning God Himself. As I said, why hasn’t ONE non-Catholic questioned God’s ability to incarnate as a man?

Any doubting,questioning,rationalization,etc,etc regarding such a HUGE move and event by God? Did not God create everything out of nothing?

But the RP? No way…God did not really say that or mean that because “I” do not comphend it.

Sorry,but it is what it is and should not cut-off discussions.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lincoln7,

This is a bit awkward … while it may seem like you and I have a difference - and we really do - but, we need to go a bit deeper into this matter, because it is not just a disagreement over the meaning of The Lord’s Words. Don’t misunderstand - there are some items that we do agree on… Christ never said the word, ‘Transsubstantian’.

So, here are a couple step-by-step questions that I would appreciate you addressing.

The Eucharist Discourse (John 6:21-72) here is a link - usccb.org/bible/john/6really does spend a lot of time on food, eating and Christ’s role. He defends His position in the face of genuine opposition from His followers. In the end, Judas gives up. The Jews make it quite clear that they are rejecting - not Moses and mana, not anything else - except the idea of eating Christ’s Flesh at His expressed command. Why do you think the Jews walked away?

My second question is that the Synoptic Gospels all basically say the same things ( Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22,) - Christ taking Bread and Wine and saying that these substances were no longer what they seem to be but now have been changed per the order of God Himself. Why do you think all three accounts give the same change done in the same way?

In St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 11 usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11, the Apostles to the Gentiles was quite grieved by how these Corinthians were responding with disrespect towards the Eucharist,.** Why do you think he responded the way he did if this was only a symbol? **

Moving forward to the Early Church Fathers (ECF), we find not one of them doubted that Christ physically changed common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity while still keeping the appearances of bread and wine - here is an interesting link: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html. In fact their belief in the Real Presence (i.e., Christ 's Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) is - you guessed it - REALLY present - not just somehow there is some kind of spiritual sense. What is interesting is that what Christ said, what the Apostles believed, what the ECF taught - is just what the Catholic Church teaches today. My last question is, why do you think anyone or any group would want to change this continuity of belief that is traced back all the way to Christ?

I think the real answer lies in discovering what it is we do believe.

God bless

tqualey,

No, we simply disagree on the meaning of The Lords words.

Again, we differ on what the Lord means. I don’t really want to get into a “that’s your interpretation” debate, as they are endless… I simply wanted to demonstrate not all Protestants hold to a more zwinglian view of the Eucharist.

You have quoted it fine. It simply doesn’t think that Christ means exactly what you do. Again, I hold to the true presence, but that doesn’t automatically mean transubstantiation.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Traverse]

Apparently, arguments you do not agree with are just irrelevant… shame. This is the kind of dismissiveness that short circuits meaningful dialogue. You bring up your opinion - and in a rather poorly worded fashion - get upset when your hand is call on just what you wrote, claim ‘semantics’ is all that is involved - and expect what?

Whoa, where does this come from? I’m not upset at all and if I’ve offended you in some way I apologize. I just disagree on some of the observations made here. I don’t understand the rude language here coming from you and Nicea and others.

I wasn’t expecting anything by commenting on semantics. I was just speculating and it was in an attempt to find common ground with your beliefs, not to dismiss anything at all.

We see that Jesus is continuing to repeat the theme begun earlier that He is the Food that will be given. There is no other example in the NT where Christ continues to repeat and repeat what He has said. Look at the length of the Eucharistic Discourse - much of it having to do repeating what was previously said. And dispite this intense teaching - we see in v 60 the rejection with contempt - effectively calling Christ crazy for teaching this ‘hard saying’ or impossibiliity. And, they arrive at this conclusion because they were not not thinking in spiritual terms - but base, carnal, fleshy, ‘molecular’ terms. If they could not see it - they would reject it. If they could not understand it - they would reject it.

I don’t quite understand the point you’re making here and if you choose to clarify I’d be grateful. Namely, you’re saying that “people understood Him as speaking literally and therefore it was literal.” What I see when I read John 6 is people freaking out because they take it literally, because they do not trust Him. They think he’s going to not only stick his arm out for them to gnaw on but they think that saves them somehow and it’s unfathomable to them. Not only are they weirded out but they don’t understand the purpose of eating His flesh and blood.

John 6:51-52
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Christ is explaining the nature of His statement. He’s alluding to the impending sacrifice for our sins and they do not understand this. They focus on the eating and do not stop to think of the spiritual things He is saying.

So, here we have, as I stated previously, Protestantism claiming that God can do all things - except what He said He would do. He said He would give us His Flesh to nourish us - and this is dismissed as semantics.

It’s not dismissed as semantics. I’m sorry I ever brought up the thing as it’s been nothing but a misunderstanding. Clearly you’re right in that my responses are “poorly worded” because I’ve had to reiterate this point over and over.

I was saying that while I think the body and blood in the bread and wine are spiritual you believe in transubstantiation which, to my knowledge, is the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood, but retaining the appearance and physicality of bread and wine. All I meant was that that sounds like it’s spiritually the body and blood, which is already what I believe anyway. I just don’t go so far as to bother specifying the nature of the change.

Seriously, we have a major disagreement - and it is NOT semantics. We both believe that there was a Last Supper - Catholics believe what Christ said, and Protestants don’t. I really do not see how you can try and package this any differently.

I am interested in your response and not more dismissive quips.

I have not attempted to make dismissive quips. The closest I can think of is saying something nicea said was irrelevant, but I also explained my reasoning and that was certainly dismissed entirely. If nothing else I can assure you I’m not TRYING to make quips. Nor am I trying to be dismissive at all or I wouldn’t bother to answer anyone point by point. A disagreement is not necessarily being dismissive.

 

[Traverse]

Of course it is irrelevant when it goes against one’s traditions and beliefs. Irrelevant to you because of your lack of knowledge and comprehension of their works. Second, I never said they were used to preach doctrine,but were written in defense of orthodox doctrines which says a lot. Third, the first Christians only heard preaching from the mouths of the Apostles on doctrine,they were not reading NT material to them.

I’m not saying it’s irrelevant because it goes against my traditions. I said it was irrelevant because you were using statements by the church fathers as arguments for the real presence. It’s an argument that they believed in the real presence, sure, but it’s not an argument that the real presence is accurate. Why? Because their writings are not inspired scripture.

I also didn’t say they were used to preach doctrine, but you are using them for that purpose.

I don’t disagree that the first Christians did not have the NT and heard preaching from the mouths of Apostles (and those gifted with spiritual gifts) on matters of doctrine. I never said that didn’t happen. I never said any such thing here that you are implying.

All I said was that arguing from the perspective of the church fathers is not very helpful because, while interesting writings, they do not speak from a position of divine authority. Why do you insist I lack knowledge and comprehension of their works in such a snide way? I told you myself that I am not very familiar with the works of the church fathers. And how does this translate into a lack of comprehension? I haven’t tried to tell you what they’ve said. I’ve only told you that what they say is not relevant to our discussion.

Does that mean the church fathers are never relevant? Of course not. But here, where we are discussing the concept of the real presence from biblical passages, bringing in the equivalent of a bible commentary doesn’t really prove your point more. It just proves that someone else agrees with you.

I’m sorry to jump on you like this, but I’m weary of being called dismissive and un-knowledgeable just because I make points you disagree with. I’m not doing that to you. I’m replying to your points, making my own comments, but in response you’re basically just calling me stupid. Thanks?

 

[benjohnson]

I find it fascinating that we creatures demand concrete answers to the greatest give we have ever received from our lord.

I think a certain amount of trust that God’s gift is sufficent is quite wise.

 

[Lincoln7]

tqualey,

The Eucharist Discourse (John 6:21-72) here is a link - usccb.org/bible/john/6really does spend a lot of time on food, eating and Christ’s role. He defends His position in the face of genuine opposition from His followers. In the end, Judas gives up. The Jews make it quite clear that they are rejecting - not Moses and mana, not anything else - except the idea of eating Christ’s Flesh at His expressed command. Why do you think the Jews walked away?

Well I think the passage as I’ve said before, isn’t actually a direct statement by the Lord on the Eucharist, but rather he means eating and drinking to be taken as synonymous with believing in him. The passage is important though for our understanding of the Eucharist.

All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;— and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense;
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

Augustine sums up what I think there, and why the Jews present walked away.

My second question is that the Synoptic Gospels all basically say the same things ( Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22,) - Christ taking Bread and Wine and saying that these substances were no longer what they seem to be but now have been changed per the order of God Himself. Why do you think all three accounts give the same change done in the same way?

Well to you they say the substances have changed, to me they don’t. The gospels all give the same account of the supper yes.

In St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 11 usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11, the Apostles to the Gentiles was quite grieved by how these Corinthians were responding with disrespect towards the Eucharist,. Why do you think he responded the way he did if this was only a symbol?

You seem to have the idea I only see it as symbolic?

Quite rightly was Paul grieved. To again quite Augustine.

Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Sums it up.

Moving forward to the Early Church Fathers (ECF), we find not one of them doubted that Christ physically changed common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity while still keeping the appearances of bread and wine - here is an interesting link: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html. In fact their belief in the Real Presence (i.e., Christ 's Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) is - you guessed it - REALLY present - not just somehow there is some kind of spiritual sense. What is interesting is that what Christ said, what the Apostles believed, what the ECF taught - is just what the Catholic Church teaches today. My last question is, why do you think anyone or any group would want to change this continuity of belief that is traced back all the way to Christ?

Hmm, broad claim. One I’m not entirely sure about. To read transubstantiation into th earlys fathers does not do them justice. This ws simply not the view they held, indeed one could easily quote Pope Gelasius to demonstrate the fact they didn’t all view it in said manner…

“The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be.”
m.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Gelasius%20(1)%20I.,%20bp.%20of%20Rome

One could find more examples of varied Eucharistic thought in the early church. I’m not debating some held to a view much closer to the Catholic view, but I’m saying some clearly don’t. See Schaffs ‘History of the Christian Church’ section on it here: m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm Beginning at point 95.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[dnicoll]

“this is my body” is taken as symbolic/metaphorical. Just as when Jesus said “I am the good Shepherd” (no, he was a carpenter), I am the vine (no, he is human), I am the gate for the sheep (ditto), “I am the light of the world, whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness” (erm, it gets awfully dark at night). “I am the bread of life” is read alongside these statements.

 

[Bernadette173]

As a Catholic I am taught trans substantiation that the bread and wine are literally Christ’s body and blood. And from Jn 6:51 that Jesus says we must eat of His flesh, and drink of His blood to have eternal life. In Jn 6:52 the Jews interpret Him** literaly**.Jesus repeats again and again in verses 53-56 of Jn that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. Take special note of verse 55 " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’’. -This is not the language of symbolism. It means exactly as Christ said it did, it is the actual body[flesh] and blood of Christ’s body, and we are to do this in remembrance of Him.

God Bless,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bernadette173,

Great post!

There is no recorded scriptural evidence of anyone anywhere walking out because an analogy or metaphor was used in a teaching. It just doesn’t happen. And, you know what … it didn’t happen this time, either! The Jews walked out on Christ, as recorded in John 6, because they did understand what He meant - and they rejected this. Period.

God bless

As a Catholic I am taught trans substantiation that the bread and wine are literally Christ’s body and blood. And from Jn 6:51 that Jesus says we must eat of His flesh, and drink of His blood to have eternal life. In Jn 6:52 the Jews interpret Him** literaly**.Jesus repeats again and again in verses 53-56 of Jn that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. Take special note of verse 55 " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’’. -This is not the language of symbolism. It means exactly as Christ said it did, it is the actual body[flesh] and blood of Christ’s body, and we are to do this in remembrance of Him.

God Bless,

 

[Maryann_C]

Both authentic Protestant and Catholic teaching tell us that it is the “true body and true blood” or the “real presence.”

There are plenty of Catholics and plenty of Protestants that don’t believe this. For example only 50% of Catholics believe in the real presence.

veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/half-of-catholics-dont-believe-in-the-real-presence/

Let us all work on our fellow christian to get them to this basic and fundemental truth, instead of arguing over small details.

In my opinion, of course.

Dear BJ I suggest you read my post #62 . The difference is that even though many Catholics may not believe in the real presence they are going against very clear Catholic Church teaching and it does NOT matter which lung you are breathing with . Lutheran teaching seems to depend on what part of the Lutheran Church you are with.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lincoln7,

I am not trying to be uncharitable (it comes naturally…) but, really - don’t you see a contradictin here:

You seem to have the idea I only see it as symbolic?

From your posts, that is the impression that I have. And maybe we need to be clear about what a symbol is - a sign for something else.

A ‘Stop’ sign today represents the civil authority having legitimate and reasonable control of how a street can be safely entered. It is similar - yet quite different - from a ‘Yield’ sign. And none of the signs we commonly use while driving are the item (the authority of legitimate civil authority) itself - they just stand for that authority. The Eucharist is NOT A SYMBOL.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but the Eucharist is physical, in that we can preceive it with our senses and It is the Body and Blood of Christ, It is spiritual in the sense that It is now the Human Soul and Divinity of Christ - all under the appearance of common bread and wine. This is totally out of the realm of human understanding - and the Jews in John 6 demonstrated that fact by walking away from Christ.

You know, some of the most profound words ever written are found in Scripture. Christ was truly a Master of Language - never unable to communicate even when He said nothing (Woman caught in adultery, standing before Herod, etc.). I have no doubt that if Christ chose, He could have said, “Take and eat, this is A SYMBOL of My Body”… just like you are claiming He meant. But, the simply fact is, He clearly identified with what appeared to be common bread when He said, “This is my Body”.

In teaching reading to children, two items are of importance: speed, so that the words flow together and comprehension, so that what is read is also understood. The 50 verses in John 6 do not contain technical works, don’t have complex sentence structure and can be read by a 4th grader without difficulty. Believing what was said, takes faith. Understanding what was said, however, takes comprehension. Any child taking a reading test will be asked questions about how well the reading material was understood. It is simply beyond my comprehension how these words are not understood for what they say. And, for all of their short-comings, the Jews really did understand what Christ said.

Hmm, broad claim. One I’m not entirely sure about. To read transubstantiation into th earlys fathers does not do them justice. This ws simply not the view they held, indeed one could easily quote Pope Gelasius to demonstrate the fact they didn’t all view it in said manner…

One could find more examples of varied Eucharistic thought in the early church. I’m not debating some held to a view much closer to the Catholic view, but I’m saying some clearly don’t. See Schaffs ‘History of the Christian Church’ section on it here: m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm Beginning at point 95.

Please note, it is only one of many very broad claims: we also believe that God took Flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary, that He suffered and died that we may live, that He rose from the dead on His Own Power and that He will come again in Power to judge all humanity. Some or all of these broad claims are denied by many. I would think that He really did have the Power to be physically present, hidden under the appearance of common bread and wine - after all, He Is God.

In fairness to the ECFs - none of them used the term ‘transubstantiation’. According to Wiki, it has a 12th Century origin en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation. What is of note is that Christ did not give a name for what He did - He just did It! The ECFs just believed it. Later on, people wanted a greater understanding - but, this is the Mystery of Faith and will never be fully understood.

Now, concerning your question about the Pope St. Galasius Here is a link: catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/QandA/PopeGelasiusAndTransubstantiation.aspx
From Christ giving the Keys to Peter (Matt 16) to Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church claims 266 successors to Peter newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Pope St. Galasius was 49th in that rank. and I think there has been a misunderstanding. I really was not previously aware of ths Pope or any controversy involving him. So, I had to do some research.

But, maybe we need to be clear about something else: teaching without error. Popes made (and make) all kinds of mistakes - they also sin…just like the rest of us! But when they define a doctrine it is a very special circumstance - like for Catholics it is a matter of faith that Christ really is present in the Eucharist. Deny this and you are no longer a Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI has written several books - none of them are infallable teaching. What they all claim is that there is nothing in the book that is contrary to Catholic Faith. In thinking about this 5th Century Pope, I really marveled - that with 266, only he came up. Truly there were some Popes that gave grave public scandal - but, for all of their faults (and they were many) none denied any of the teachings of the Catholic Church or came up with a teaching that is now discredited! it is not because of the quality or character of these men - rather, this is the Power of God protecting His Church from error.

I will read your link this afternoon - thanks for sending it

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dnicoll,

I am really having a problem with your post. If I am reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that Christ is NOT physically present int he Eucharist - it is symbolic/metaphorical.

While I do not think this is what you mean…I am really not sure, simply based on what you wrote?

God bless

“this is my body” is taken as symbolic/metaphorical. Just as when Jesus said “I am the good Shepherd” (no, he was a carpenter), I am the vine (no, he is human), I am the gate for the sheep (ditto), “I am the light of the world, whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness” (erm, it gets awfully dark at night). “I am the bread of life” is read alongside these statements.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Maryann,

There is this rumor … … that a well-know polling organization has been assigned to a position at the Pearly Gates! And there will be this last set of questions - about the Last Ends (they can skip over the one about death…) So far, half don’t believe they will be judged or that there is a Hell, a few don’t believe in God!!

So, far, St Peter has gotten a chuckle and the polling group is starting to see that Heaven is not run by a show of hands!

In John 6, we find virtually all of Christ’s listeners walked out on Him! The show of hands has never been a real indicator of what is Truth.

God bless

Dear BJ I suggest you read my post #62 . The difference is that even though many Catholics may not believe in the real presence they are going against very clear Catholic Church teaching and it does NOT matter which lung you are breathing with . Lutheran teaching seems to depend on what part of the Lutheran Church you are with.