How do you eat a symbol?

[Sy_Noe]

I can’t believe this thread has lasted for seven pages…

Protestants eat and drink “symbolically” whenever they have their communion service (however often that may be in any particular congregation…).

Catholics and the Orthodox consume the Body and Blood of Christ (NOT a symbol) when we/they participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Seems pretty simple to me…

Except don’t Episcopalians (if you consider them Protestants) and Lutherans hold to some form of the RP? (Though yes I understand Catholics don’t accept these others as being so though) But I know an Episcopal priest told me they did, saying they just don’t attempt to explain how this occurs as do Catholics with transubstantiation. And then you get to a Protestant denomination like the Disciples of Christ, Christian Church which practices Communion weekly and a DoC pastor told me he sure hopes the spirit of Christ is present!

 

[PRmerger]

Tryin to think in the abstract, PRmerger, but sometimes your comparisons do still just leave me scratchin mi head a bit. Military tanks and the mysteries of faith for instance. I believe and think though we have hijacked the thread more than enough with tank talk thus I shall say no more about tanks. Of course you’re the one who brought them up 1st on the thread.

If we just stick to moral issues, such as your assertion that it’s absolutely wrong to have tanks in the street, then we are comparing apples to apples.

You agree that with some moral issues (tanks in the streets) you can assert with a great degree of certainty that it is absolutely wrong.

I, too, believe that with some moral issues we can have some great degree of certititude that it’s wrong or right.

Incidentally, I want to thank you for answering my question regarding rating your degree of certitude on certain issues.

To my discredit, I expected a gross and utter dismissal of my question. My bad. I should have known that you wouldn’t be so discourteous as to not engage me.

:tiphat:

 

[ericc]

He could if He wanted to, but we have seen actual change from water to wine. The wine was wine, not water in any way shape or form. Further the command to not drink or eat blood wasn’t just an old testament law, but a new testament command as well, whereas drinking wine was permissible. Meaning, not only do we see water truly become wine, there is no command to avoid wine, so the change is seen and the consuming is allowed… it would not be so with wine to blood.

And you have just illustrated how clever Jesus was to have us consume his body in the form of bread. He avoided the Jewish scandal of cannibalism. Since you have answered that God could do it, why do you need to bend backwards to avoid the plain meaning written by 3 Gospel writers? You can’t decide for Christ how he ought to/should give his body for believers to eat. You are not his adviser nor privy to his inner thoughts.

And you have not even address why all early Christians understood the Eucharist to be literally the Lord himself.

1. Are you saying all those saints and Church Fathers have been committing idolatry of bread for 1500 years?
   2.Are you saying that the Holy Spirit misled the Church all these while? Jesus says the HS will guide us into all truths. So did Jesus lied or the HS didn’t do his job?
2. Are you saying Jesus wasn’t with the Church all these while? He promised he will be with us always. He is the head and the Church his bride. Where was he when all Christians were idolizing bread?
3. Are you saying 1500 years later then Protestants figure out it is only a symbol and you believe you are protected from error?

You have an uphill battle.

You need to state your stand on these 4 items above.

And He said we don’t consume the bread of life the way they consumed manna in the dessert; how did they consume it? Literally and physically. Further, we do experience regular death if we take communion, we don’t experience spiritual death.

And Jesus said to eat his body literally using verbs like “trogo” which mean to chew or gnaw. How do you gnaw a symbol? When he is trying his best to tell you how to eat his body, you are just looking blankly at him and telling yourself he can’t possibly mean that. And to those people, he will ask you, are you going to walk away too?

Because those miracles are evidential; the lame really walked, the deaf really heard, the water became actual wine, the loaves and fishes actually multiplied. They are not hidden actions.

Just another Thomas act. If you don’t see it, you don’t believe. Not only must you see it, it must look like it. It is hard to accept that based upon faith, that piece of bread is indeed the Lord himself, despite him telling you that. “THIS IS MY BODY”. I find that doubt hard to reconcile with a religion that is supposedly sola faith.

The partaking was done unworthily (that’s an adverb). The people were profaning the body of Christ (notice it doesn’t say blood, but body) by splitting up into groups, not waiting for one another, and not recognizing the Body of Christ; their fellow believers. People were going hungry, and people were getting drunk, and people were committing gluttony when they were supposed to be recognizing they are one unit and partaking of food and communion together, showing forth Christ to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately 1 Cor 11:27 specifically says “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” It does say “blood”. No matter how rowdy or uncharitable these people are, they can’t be guilty of profaning any symbols can they?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes I think you said the truth when you said it “is a statement of faith”. That’s my point too. Faith and belief is not the same as truth.

Well… but…

This is where Newman’s ‘illative sense’ really does come into play. We can’t say that our faith in the Catholic Church is merely an issue of faith – as if we’re scrunching up our eyes and covering our ears and saying, “it’s not a matter of truth, it’s a matter of belief!”

Our belief in the Catholic Church comes from a process in which our rational thought processes are satisfied – through whatever means (reading, study, acceptance of tenets held by trusted others) – and through this process by which our rational self is convinced of the truth, we come to accept the proposition before us: that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and protected from doctrinal error by God. Yes, there is faith; but it’s “faith and reason”, not just “faith alone.”

(Now, once we’ve reached that (logic-and-reason-based) decision which, as part of its deliberations, does have a faith component, we’re in a position to claim certainty with respect to the Church.)

But I wholeheartedly agree without their faith and a belief that they have the truth, Catholics couldn’t proclaim they know. Or a better way I think of putting it would be for faith-filled Catholics to say, we believe or think we know.

I’m not sure that this is a better way of putting it, since what you’ve just done here is reduce the result of a logical process to some sort of statement of uncertainty. I recognize that this is where you want to end up, so it makes sense for you to end up here; but that’s not at all where the process ends up. It’s more like the results of a logical conclusion which lead to certain reasonable – and reasonably expected! – effects.

 

[Kliska]

He avoided the Jewish scandal of cannibalism.

No, He would not have, if transubstantiation is to believed. If one studies the ideas of Aristotle from which the RCC formed the idea of transubstantiation, the appearance of a thing is a moot point. Transubstantiation teaches you are indeed drinking blood.

why do you need to bend backwards to avoid the plain meaning written by 3 Gospel writers?

Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.

why all early Christians understood the Eucharist to be literally the Lord himself.

That is simply not the case. Paul certainly didn’t consider the piece of bread to be Jesus Himself. Nor did many of the early church fathers, nor was it recorded as such in the Didache.

1. Are you saying all those saints and Church Fathers have been committing idolatry of bread for 1500 years?

If the bread is not the Lord, and if those individuals are worshiping bread as though it is the Lord, then idolatry was committed. Idolatry is not an unforgivable sin, however. Further, to clarify my position, from my own studies I don’t believe the early church fathers were monolithic in the belief of transubstantiation. I do understand others don’t interpret them as I do.

2.Are you saying that the Holy Spirit misled the Church all these while?

Quite the opposite, the Holy Spirit indwells and guides all believers. Jesus and Paul warn again and again and again against false teaching and false leaders. It is clear false teachers and false leaders were already on the scene even in biblical days, so there is no promise the church won’t stray (in fact in Revelation we see several churches that did indeed stray). Further, Paul even warns that if and angel from heaven or he himself teaches a different gospel not to heed it. If that wasn’t a chance, then he was lying.

1. Are you saying Jesus wasn’t with the Church all these while? He promised he will be with us always.

The church isn’t an institution, but rather all believers, all out-called ones. He is with all believers even now. In fact He made it clear He is truly and really present anywhere 2 or more are gathered in His name.

1. Are you saying 1500 years later then Protestants figure out it is only a symbol and you believe you are protected from error?

Once more, I see it taught as symbol in the bible.

You need to state your stand on these 4 items above.

I have quite often.

And Jesus said to eat his body literally using verbs like “trogo” which mean to chew or gnaw. And to those people, he will ask you, are you going to walk away too?

The ones that got upset were the ones that took Him literally, just as they got upset when they took Him literally about tearing the temple down. They were wrong on both counts. The ingesting and eating of something is an extremely common way of describing something symbolically in the Jewish tradition, with examples in the OT as well as the NT.

Just another Thomas act. If you don’t see it, you don’t believe. Not only must you see it, it must look like it. It is hard to accept that based upon faith, that piece of bread is indeed the Lord himself, despite him telling you that. “THIS IS MY BODY”. I find that doubt hard to reconcile with a religion that is supposedly sola faith.

But the RCC doesn’t even take Him literally; He said this is My body, not this is My body, blood, soul and divinity. There’s no need for the wine if that were so. I take Him quite literally just as I take Him literally that He is living water, and that He is the chief cornerstone, and that He is a vine and a door and light. The Matzoh bread served at Passover is without yeast, sinless, bruised, broken, pierced. Every time we have communion we show forth Christ crucified.

Unfortunately 1 Cor 11:27 specifically says “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” It does say “blood”. No matter how rowdy or uncharitable these people are, they can’t be guilty of profaning any symbols can they?

Wrong verse context for the point; 1 Corinthian 11: 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

You act as though symbols have no power or reality. That is simply not true, and is why is it insulting when people refer to things as “merely” or “just” symbolic. That is denying the reality and the power of that thing. We are the body of Christ. We are His body. They were eating and drinking unworthily (adverb), how were they eating and drinking in an unworthy manner? They were not discerning the Lord’s body; the church.

In the old testament David refused to drink water from a well calling it the blood of his men. He poured it out for an offering. He certainly believed and showed that a symbol can indeed be profaned. Something symbolic is not devoid of actual reality nor power.

 

[peace2u2]

:
Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.

That is simply not the case. Paul certainly didn’t consider the piece of bread to be Jesus Himself. Nor did many of the early church fathers, nor was it recorded as such in the Didache.

The church isn’t an institution, but rather all believers, all out-called ones. He is with all believers even now. In fact He made it clear He is truly and really present anywhere 2 or more are gathered in His name.

Once more, I see it taught as symbol in the bible.

Quote by Kliska:
[Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.]

Our Faith is not by Bible Alone or Sola Scriptura. Where in your Bible does it say by Bible Alone?

First there was no written New Testament in circulation when Jesus walked the earth and it took some years after for the Church which came before the Bible to sort out all the written letters that were circulating at the time before the Canon was set in the New Testament that you read and therefore the tradition of handing on the teachings of Christ were done so in the same manner that He Himself handed them on by Sacred Tradition thru Him speaking orally.

When Jesus taught He did not say, write this down, but rather DO THIS and the Words that He spoke at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist went something like this: “This is my Body”…Jesus did not say this is a symbol of my Body, but rather that the bread that He was holding up IS HIS BODY and therefore Jesus was handing on a way for His followers to continue to receive His very life and not just spiritually but to physically in a tangible way place the life of God Himself inside our souls. The Eucharist is our food for the journey our soul food that we consume as we journey to our Heavenly home. He is the rain in a dry and parched land that we journey thru.

When you read your Bible yes you are receiving God’s Grace in a “spiritual” way there is no way when you read His Word you are receiving Him in the same way He is received in the Eucharist. You do not rip off a piece of paper that the word of God is written on and swallow it do you? So how is it that you “consume” the written word of God?

We receive the Glorified Risen Lord in the Eucharist not the crucified Lord for He was crucified one and for all.

Quote by Kliska:
[That is simply not the case. Paul certainly didn’t consider the piece of bread to be Jesus Himself. Nor did many of the early church fathers, nor was it recorded as such in the Didache.]

You are not really reading the ECF then because the writings of the early Church Fathers does point to this reality that they did believe in the Real Presence and so did St. Paul.

St. Ignatius (AD 110-70 years after Jesus’ death) Ignatius writes in a letter to Smyrnaeans: “[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…”

St. Justin Martyr (AD 150) writes, “…not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but …as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 195): writes in Against Heresies, “He [Jesus] has declared the cup, a part of his creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Blood, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 350): He himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, “This is my Body,” who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, “This is my Body,” who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?

St. Cyril says again, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let the faith make you firm, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

When believers come together in praise and worship in the Catholic Church isn’t Jesus present too? where 2 or more are gathered in His Name? Have you ever been to a praise and worship service at a Catholic Church? It may be different than how you ritually worship the Lord, but it is worship whether you like the way we worship or not.

Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you God’s wisdom and understanding on the Real Presence and pray for your heart and your mind to be opened so God can reveal all that He would like to reveal to you.

Many Blessings and God’s Grace be poured out into your soul.

 

[Kliska]

Our Faith is not by Bible Alone or Sola Scriptura. Where in your Bible does it say by Bible Alone?

I never claimed it does say that. You can’t understand scripture without the Holy Spirit.

First there was no written New Testament in circulation when Jesus walked the earth and it took some years after for the Church which came before the Bible to sort out all the written letters that were circulating at the time before the Canon was set in the New Testament that you read and therefore the tradition of handing on the teachings of Christ were done so in the same manner that He Himself handed them on by Sacred Tradition thru Him speaking orally.

The Old Testament books were there and the bulk of the New Testament books were widely known and circulated throughout Christendom, with actually few that were ever really haggled over. Text crit can be applied to them, as well as the standards the councils looked at to determine if the writings were legit or not.

When Jesus taught He did not say, write this down, but rather DO THIS and the Words that He spoke at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharist went something like this: “This is my Body”…Jesus did not say this is a symbol of my Body, but rather that the bread that He was holding up IS HIS BODY and therefore Jesus was handing on a way for His followers to continue to receive His very life and not just spiritually but to physically in a tangible way place the life of God Himself inside our souls. The Eucharist is our food for the journey our soul food that we consume as we journey to our Heavenly home. He is the rain in a dry and parched land that we journey thru.

You just did the same thing; He is the rain. But He isn’t literally rain, is He? Drink the living water; He isn’t water. The water in David’s cup was called blood, but it wasn’t really blood. Symbolic language of just the same type is throughout old and new testament. In a very real and powerful way that bread is indeed His body as is the partaking of it amongst a gathering of His believer; His body.

When you read your Bible yes you are receiving God’s Grace in a “spiritual” way there is no way when you read His Word you are receiving Him in the same way He is received in the Eucharist. You do not rip off a piece of paper that the word of God is written on and swallow it do you? So how is it that you “consume” the written word of God?

Just as is outlined in old and new testament you consume the word by reading and believing. His life is in us via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Who is God. God is in us in a literal and real way.

You are not really reading the ECF then because the writings of the early Church Fathers does point to this reality that they did believe in the Real Presence and so did St. Paul.

People on all sides cherry pick the ECF’s just like they cherry pick scriptures. As I said I don’t expect a Catholic to agree with what I feel are clear writings where ECF’s believe in the power and reality of the symbol of bread and wine.

Pray for the Holy Spirit to give you God’s wisdom and understanding on the Real Presence and pray for your heart and your mind to be opened so God can reveal all that He would like to reveal to you.

I pray that He grants all of His people wisdom and understanding of the truth of His teaching, and that He make His truth clear to all believers, me included.

Many Blessings and God’s Grace be poured out into your soul.

Grace and peace to you,
K

 

[pablope]

Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.

 

[Peebo]

The real meaning was watered down by Protestants after the reformation and they were able to discern scripture however they wanted…Jesus said…THIS is my body…do THIS in memory of me…THIS is my blood…do THIS in memory of me…and that was the way it had been since earliest Christianity…so it was easy for Protestants…(who were protesting against Catholicism) to just change the meaning…this is my body…do this in MEMORY of me…this is my blood…do this in MEMORY of me…that’s why they tend to skip John 6:where even some followers of Jesus left him because they couldn’t accept his teaching…he never told them he only meant it symbolically

 

[JonNC]

Hi Kliska,
Just some thoughts.

=Kliska;13158429]
Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.

You are right; when Jesus says, " I am the ______", it is symbolic. He’s describing Himself metaphorically, in ways people can understand. The language of the LastSupper is different, ISTM. Here He is not saying, “I am the [something]”. Instead, He is holding bread in His hand, and He is saying, quite clearly, “This is my body”. “I am this” is different than “this is me”. The direction is different, and the intention is clearly different.

That is simply not the case. Paul certainly didn’t consider the piece of bread to be Jesus Himself. Nor did many of the early church fathers, nor was it recorded as such in the Didache.

Paul seems to believe it is His body, as he says:

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.

And Luther responds to the question:

"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 doesn’t speak for most protestants, but implied in the quote is my question: which of the Fathers of the Church said it is only symbolic (only)?

Jon

 

[Sy_Noe]

If we just stick to moral issues, such as your assertion that it’s absolutely wrong to have tanks in the street, then we are comparing apples to apples.

You agree that with some moral issues (tanks in the streets) you can assert with a great degree of certainty that it is absolutely wrong.

I, too, believe that with some moral issues we can have some great degree of certititude that it’s wrong or right.

Incidentally, I want to thank you for answering my question regarding rating your degree of certitude on certain issues.

To my discredit, I expected a gross and utter dismissal of my question. My bad. I should have known that you wouldn’t be so discourteous as to not engage me.

:tiphat:

No worries PRmerger. I believe or think I know from your posts you enjoy thinking in the abstract which involves the ability to use concepts and you’ve now come up with the concept that I am an EOE (= opportunity engager) All’s well.

 

[steve_b]

I agree with you, but they would say “do this in remembrance of Me” means just that. We do it in remembrance of Him.

Jon

It shows “they” don’t know what’s behind the meaning of the words Jesus spoke when He said “do this”

in context, Jesus

• changed bread and wine into His body and blood. Not a symbol
• at the same time, He instituted the ministerial priesthood at this supper before He died…
• and we know ONLY a validly ordained ministerial priesthood can do this

So, Jesus not only wants them (His ordained priests ) to do exactly what He did, (change bread and wine into His body and blood), He gave them (His priests) the power to do this.

When He said to them…“Do”

ποιεῖτε , *poieō ****DO ***

Definition:

1) to make
a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
**b)**to be the authors of, the cause
c) to make ready, to prepare
d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
**f)**to make a thing out of something
g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything
h) to put one forth, to lead him out
**i)**to make one do something
1) cause one to
**j)**to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2) to do
a) to act rightly, do well
**1)**to carry out, to execute
b) to do a thing unto one
**1)**to do to one
c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
**d)**to celebrate, keep
1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
**e)**to perform: to a promise
Also

#22

The question really is, how can one eat and drink condemnation on themselves by merely eating a symbol? The answer is they can’t. Condemnation only happens if it is NOT a symbol but real.

1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, … 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well… but…

This is where Newman’s ‘illative sense’ really does come into play. We can’t say that our faith in the Catholic Church is merely an issue of faith – as if we’re scrunching up our eyes and covering our ears and saying, “it’s not a matter of truth, it’s a matter of belief!”

Our belief in the Catholic Church comes from a process in which our rational thought processes are satisfied – through whatever means (reading, study, acceptance of tenets held by trusted others) – and through this process by which our rational self is convinced of the truth, we come to accept the proposition before us: that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and protected from doctrinal error by God. Yes, there is faith; but it’s “faith and reason”, not just “faith alone.”

(Now, once we’ve reached that (logic-and-reason-based) decision which, as part of its deliberations, does have a faith component, we’re in a position to claim certainty with respect to the Church.)

I’m not sure that this is a better way of putting it, since what you’ve just done here is reduce the result of a logical process to some sort of statement of uncertainty. I recognize that this is where you want to end up, so it makes sense for you to end up here; but that’s not at all where the process ends up. It’s more like the results of a logical conclusion which lead to certain reasonable – and reasonably expected! – effects.

The Episcopal faith uses faith and reason too.

 

[Sy_Noe]

so how are going to resolve which one has the right interpretation?

 

[Sy_Noe]

so how are going to resolve which one has the right interpretation?

 

[Sy_Noe]

so how are going to resolve which one has the right interpretation?

 

[Kliska]

And He gave the Scriptures through the Church…the Catholic Church, not to individuals.

He gave the inspiration for what was written to individuals. The individuals sent the letters and manuscripts to various places. Those places shared what they had. It was tracing the origins of those letters and manuscripts, dating them, and comparing them to already recognized history and scripture that let them be verified. That is also why several NT books were hotly debated.

And so the question, are you the person then to interpret correctly and without error, what the Scriptures mean with regards the Real presence/Eucahrist?

The Spirit is the correct guide. Listen to Him, not me.

Okay…so how are going to resolve which one has the right interpretation?

We work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. God gives us His Spirit, He also gave us His word.

You are right; when Jesus says, " I am the ______", it is symbolic. He’s describing Himself metaphorically, in ways people can understand. The language of the LastSupper is different, ISTM. Here He is not saying, “I am the [something]”. Instead, He is holding bread in His hand, and He is saying, quite clearly, “This is my body”. “I am this” is different than “this is me”. The direction is different, and the intention is clearly different.

You would have to show that the intention is indeed clearly different. I don’t see that. The bread was bread, it was a specific type of bread given in a specific context. The whole must be observed to make it make sense of why He said what He said. That particular piece of Matzoh was used on purpose.

A similar “direction” is looking at the church and declaring “This is the body of Christ.” Is the church His physical body? No. But, is it right to say that it is indeed His Body? Of course. I gave the example before; the old “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs” commercial. There is no doubt about the word picture, as obvious as a literary device as that is in the commercial, I see that in scripture and not just in the Last Supper. I understand the arguments for a literal interpretation, I just don’t agree with them, especially since I don’t see John 6 as connected to the Last Supper passages, as we’ve touched on before.

Paul seems to believe it is His body, as he says:

I see what he says here; 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.” 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. **

He declares it bread and cup (not flesh and blood) after the happenings of the Supper, just as it is called in the gospels. And, the emphasis is on the proclaiming of His death, not ingesting divinity in order to be forgiven or to become indwelt by Jesus in a physical sense.

Luther doesn’t speak for most protestants, but implied in the quote is my question: which of the Fathers of the Church said it is only symbolic (only)?

I don’t think I would ever say “symbolic only” nor do I think a Church father would either; however, I don’t believe in a monolithic teaching of transubstantiation by the early fathers. The problem is, and I’ve seen this on the boards a lot, the writings can be interpreted different ways as well as scripture. Many of the quotes and writings I’ve read (thus far) don’t come across as teaching transubstantiation, IMO. The word “symbol” was never used to mean it had no actual reality or power, quite the contrary.

In these conversations about the Eucharist I tend to come across as just purely argumentative and eventually just need to pipe down. I don’t like falling into that, and don’t mean any disrespect talking about it.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[Sy_Noe]

The real meaning was watered down by Protestants after the reformation and they were able to discern scripture however they wanted…Jesus said…THIS is my body…do THIS in memory of me…THIS is my blood…do THIS in memory of me…and that was the way it had been since earliest Christianity…so it was easy for Protestants…(who were protesting against Catholicism) to just change the meaning…this is my body…do this in MEMORY of me…this is my blood…do this in MEMORY of me…that’s why they tend to skip John 6:where even some followers of Jesus left him because they couldn’t accept his teaching…he never told them he only meant it symbolically

I don’t think anyone skips Jn 6. He did tell them “The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life”. So I just think believers, good well meaning people of faith, simply differ on things such as interpretations of Scripture, ECF writings and on whether Jesus literally meant he was present in flesh and blood or if the words he spoke meant he would be present in spirit or to do this in memory of. And some believe as Kliska said that the ones who got upset were the ones that still took Him literally. But in any case as Kliska pointed out we’re all just at work on our salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

He gave the inspiration for what was written to individuals. The individuals sent the letters and manuscripts to various places. Those places shared what they had. It was tracing the origins of those letters and manuscripts, dating them, and comparing them to already recognized history and scripture that let them be verified. That is also why several NT books were hotly debated.

This is nothing but a testament to Sacred Tradition.

 

[peace2u2]

I don’t think anyone skips Jn 6. He did tell them “The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life”. So I just think believers, good well meaning people of faith, simply differ on things such as interpretations of Scripture, ECF writings and on whether Jesus literally meant he was present in flesh and blood or if the words he spoke meant he would be present in spirit or to do this in memory of. And some believe as Kliska said that the ones who got upset were the ones that still took Him literally. But in any case as Kliska pointed out we’re all just at work on our salvation.

I believe if we read John chapter 6 along with the Scripture readings of the Last Supper and also the reading on the road to Emmaus you will grasp a better understanding of Jesus instituting 2 sacraments: the new priesthood and the Eucharist (the New Passover)
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3118/the_road_to_emmaus_the_reality_of_the_eucharist.aspx