How do we know the Eucharist is not Symbolic?

[Jerry-Jet]

St. Paul said that we should not approach the eucharist unless we “DISCERN the BODY”.

St. Paul didn’t say SYMBOL and a symbol wouldn’t even have to be DISCERNED!

If you don’t EAT Jesus’ BODY and DRINK His blood you don’t have life in you because Jesus said so!

Jesus said that his BODY was TRUE FOOD and that his BLOOD was TRUE DRINK!

True Blood and True Drink are NOT symbols!

If they were only symbols the people following Jesus wouldn’t have said “This is a hard saying”.

What would be hard about symbols?
"
It would only be hard if Jesus meant what He said “TRUE FOOD” and “TRUE DRINK”.

Do you think it is just coincidence that many years later when verse numbers were added that the people who said “This is a hard saying” and quit following Jesus and LEFT–LEFT in John 6:66–

the very number of the devil?!

Ask the devil and he’ll say that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

Ask yourself: do I really want to be on the devil’s side and maintain that the eucharist is only symbolic when Christ’s Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus is really SUBSTANTIALLY present–Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity?

The Eucharist is what separates REAL FAITH from easy faith–it separates a REAL relationship with Christ to a let me design my own little personal relationship with Christ.

Some people who believe that the Eucharist is only symbolic seem to worship themselves so much that they can believe in their own soul that is invisible but REAL–but can’t believe that Jesus’ soul can REALLY be present in the Eucharist.

They seem to believe that Jesus can be present and listening to peoples’s prayers all around the world at once–but they can’t believe that He could be substantially present underneath the accidents of bread and wine all round the world all at once.

Why do they LIMIT God? Why will they take Jesus at LITERAL face value nearly everywhere but won’t take him at LITERAL face value when He repeats himself over and over and over again in John Chapter 6?

And why would they think that God would allow His Church to teach what would be a complete lie about the eucharist for over 1500 years up to the Protestant Reformation?

Do they think that God was IMPOTENT to do anything about that for 1500 years or do they think that he just didn’t care and that it didn’t matter–when it was the central event in all of christian worship?!

The REAL REASON they oppose the Eucharist as real and say that it is only symbolic is so that there would be no need for priests to CONFECT the Eucharist.

With no priests then individual congregations can believe ANYTHING they want–they need not submit to any church authority.

The devil was SO GLAD with this mindset. It was like the mindset of adam and Eve at the Fall.

Sprinkle in a little bit of justification by faith alone–get rid of the notion of mortal sin–and viola–it is EASY to go to heaven and everyone can believe whatever they want to about God.

They can reduce God and their “PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP” with Him to whatever strikes their fancy.

Now I’m not saying that this is the INTENT of all those who do not know–or are ignorant–or haven’t been taught the Catholic faith about the Eucharist–they can’t help it–they love God with whatever understanding they have of Him by what they have been taught.

I AM SAYING it is what happens with those who DO KNOW the Catholic faith and REJECT it and then try to maintain that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

Those people are lost and they do the devil’s bidding by trying to get others to go down the wrong road that they are on.

We need to always pray for them!

 

[brb3]

I subscribe to waaaay too many threads and so could not possibly find it now.
Someone, somewhere said that even some Methodists believe in the Holy Presence. Can’t tell you how many I’ve attended where it is deemed symbolic only; I didn’t know otherwise.
Til yesterday. I stumbled upon the one in the area that deems it the Holy Presence… The whole thing was so reminiscent of a Catholic Mass. The procession, the Sign of the Cross, the Altar kids, going up to the altar for communion, the blessings, seemingly everything; but no kneeling…
it was a shocker to me. I never knew…

I’ve heard that some Protestant pastors have come to believe in literal interpretation of John 6…and are telling their flocks to view it that way. And, their Churches are blessed by this new appreciation… l

 

[cheezey]

I’ve heard that some Protestant pastors have come to believe in literal interpretation of John 6…and are telling their flocks to view it that way. And, their Churches are blessed by this new appreciation… l

I agree.

 

[JonNC]

Yes I know there are some Protestant communities approach communion similar to Catholicism. What I am speaking of are evangelicals such as Baptists, non-denominationals, etc. Even Lutherans however consider that the elements don’t remain the Body and Blood once communion is over with. At least that is what it was told me.

Not entirely accurate. What Lutherans believe is that Christ tells us that the sacrament is the eating and drinking. Therefore, Lutherans have generally had qualms about, particularly, the Corpus Christi Procession, and some with Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act.
Hence, the proper practice regarding the reliquae is that it be consumed at the end of the sacramental act, other than that which is reserved for the sick and shut in.

I, personally, am fearful of the Phillipist approach that it is not His body and blood after the sacramental act, for it leads to irreverence toward the reliquae, and also to the heresy of receptionism.

Great comment from Pastor Weedon here:
weedon.blogspot.com/2007/02/reliquae.html

Jon