How do you eat a symbol?

[Doormouse]

SY noe
I would say these people here would give a ten .

google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjACahUKEwjA7O3ZtP3GAhVGKtsKHYOBD2c&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acfp2000.com%2FMiracles%2Feucharistic.html&ei=1T23VYAuxtTsBoODvrgG&usg=AFQjCNHCyetue1QXiJZM0bz4bz0ZUJkqCQ&bvm=bv.98717601,d.ZGU

could you give me some thing to say the opposite?

so the title is not asking me as a “Rat Catcher” Roman Catholic, how do you eat a symbol. meaning the Holy Eucharist. its not a symbol to Roman Catholics.

 

[Doormouse]

would eating a “hot cross bun” be eating some thing symbolic?

 

[ericc]

In other words, if someone was filming a parishioner taking holy communion, they would not see literal flesh and blood being consumed. It is being consumed as the body and blood of Christ in faith by the believer.

However, if that passage in John 6 was completely literal, Christ would’ve ripped off some pieces of His flesh from his arms, legs, or torso. If that verse is to be taken literally, why shouldn’t the following verse be taken literally, too?

Why is it so difficult to accept that God has the ability to declare a piece of bread to be his body and need not be dripping with blood to be so? He is not so incapable that he couldn’t change bread to be his body and yet still maintain the accidents of bread. Protestants are almost saying since that piece of bread didn’t look like steak in the Last Supper , it can’t be the body of Christ. Now supposedly if that piece of bread were to look like steak, would Protestants have accepted that it is the body of Christ? If they did, then like Thomas, they need to see to believe. Where is their faith, that so very important piece of sola? Catholics believe it because Jesus said so , not that Jesus prove it so.

First God tell us that he fed Moses with manna from heaven. Then he followed that message by saying that his body is flesh indeed and those who eat of it has eternal life. And when he declared the piece of bread is his body in the Last Supper, suddenly
Protestants balked at accepting that it IS the body of Christ because it didn’t look like an earthly piece of steak. Yet they don’t balked at Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people, raise the dead to life etc. Why accept those miracles but not the miracle of the Eucharist? Remember 3 Gospel writers wrote clearly that Jesus said “This is my Body” and Paul said do not eat unworthily or profane the Lord. If it is just bread, there is nothing unworthy that you can do to ordinary bread. ALL early Christians believe that, the Church Councils confirmed that, the same Council that gave you the Bible. If you accept that the Bible as declared by the Council is God’s words, why do you not accept the interpretation by the Council of that same Bible?

 

[Kliska]

Why is it so difficult to accept that God has the ability to declare a piece of bread to be his body and need not be dripping with blood to be so? He is not so incapable that he couldn’t change bread to be his body and yet still maintain the accidents of bread.

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.

First God tell us that he fed Moses with manna from heaven. Then he followed that message by saying that his body is flesh indeed and those who eat of it has eternal life.

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 when he declared the piece of bread is his body in the Last Supper, suddenly
Protestants balked at accepting that it IS the body of Christ because it didn’t look like an earthly piece of steak. Yet they don’t balked at Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people, raise the dead to life etc. Why accept those miracles but not the miracle of the Eucharist?

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.

Remember 3 Gospel writers wrote clearly that Jesus said “This is my Body” and Paul said do not eat unworthily or profane the Lord. If it is just bread, there is nothing unworthy that you can do to ordinary bread.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

What evidence do you have for Mary’s conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit? Maybe it really was Joseph who fathered Jesus?

Or…it could be a “hidden action” in which the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Word became Flesh…but there is no evidence for this miraculous event.

 

[PRmerger]

its not a symbol to Roman Catholics.

Well, I think the correct way to articulate it is that it’s not ONLY a symbol to Catholics.

 

[Doormouse]

PR

 

[PRmerger]

Sigh. I’m only sighing, PRmerger, because I have in my mind that I have previously in our prior thread discussions explained myself to you. But incase not…

PRmerger, you said back there, “So please apply that to the rest of us here who also have some beliefs that we would score as an 8.”

You see PRmerger, that’s the thing. I don’t object if you and others score an 8. Because 8 is not 10. It’s not even 9.

No one has posited anything about a 10, except for you.

So I’m glad that you have no objection to me asserting things with the certainty of an 8.

We are now clear about that!!

 

[Gorgias]

And here all this time I thought I’ve been clear on numerous occasions that I’m among the human race that has finite understanding of an infinite God. So I not only don’t but can’t truly know the ultimate truth with the degree of certainty that many Catholics here proclaim and have come to believe they know.

In a way, that’s quite an odd assertion…

After all, Catholics who proclaim ‘certainty’ in their belief aren’t making a statement grounded in their own personal knowledge! It’s not like any Catholic could reasonably say, “I’ve researched all there is to be read about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation, and the Church Jesus founded, and therefore, based on my research, I can say with 100% certainty that the Catholic Church got it right!”

No… what a Catholic is saying, when s/he asserts ‘certainty’, is a statement of faith in the Church as the assembly that Jesus founded, and promised to protect, and promised to send the Holy Spirit to be with in order to assist its members. That ‘certainty’ isn’t in the realm of Newman’s illative sense, such that Catholics might say that they’ve pegged their individual ‘certainty meters’.

Rather, this ‘certainty’ in the fullness of the truth is the certainty that the Church teaches the fullness of the truth; its grounds are the belief that the Catholic Church faithfully preserves the teachings of Jesus, and the belief that it has the authority to govern the Church as passed down from Jesus to Peter and from Peter through all the popes.

Once one can say that he has this certainty, then assent to Church teaching is a matter of applying that belief to a particular teaching. It’s not that any particular teaching is a matter of personal interpretation, but rather, the application of two simple questions: did Christ give authority to the leaders of the Church? did Christ promise that the Church would ‘get it right’ – that its decrees would hold on earth and in heaven? If so, then there’s not a question of personal interpretation (or approval) of individual Church teachings, is there?

 

[peace2u2]

Matthew 12:50 in my opinion sums up the answer to that:
“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
For example, loving and trusting in God with all our heart, mind, and strength; keeping His commandments, repenting of our sins, loving our neighbor as ourselves, giving to the poor, making our body a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2), etc. That kind of person, whether he or she be Catholic or a non-Catholic Christian, is the kind of person whose prayers are heard and answered by our Lord. I truly believe that. I don’t believe that Bible-believing Protestants are second-class Christians.
I agree, peace2u2. For me, that gives considerable credence to the Catholic perspective when the early church fathers who sat under the authority of Jesus’s disciples supported a belief in the real presence. Thanks and God bless you and everyone else who might read this.
By the way, hello to my friend KathleenGee. You have helped be there for me over the past several months and continue to do so. I always appreciate you and your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I agree with you and Jesus’ words "whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother" Obedience to God the Father creates relationships greater than natural family bonds and some of my bonds with my Christian brethren are much closer than with some of my natural family. I also have 2 very close non-Catholic Christian friends (one AOG and other Non-Denominational) and when we are together, the connection is far greater than with some of my very close Catholic Christian friends. I find the majority of my Catholic Christian friends and family who have not had a conversion experience, feel very uncomfortable talking about Jesus and their faith in general. But, when I am with my Non-Catholic Christian friends, our conversation flows openly and the conversation is always centered on Jesus and to be quite honest with you if I had to choose to spend the day with my Catholic Christian family or my non-Catholic Christian friends, I would choose the later and I often cringe when there is a family gathering. I know sad, but it is true and I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead them to repentance and conversion every day. Without repenting of our sinfulness (every day) and conversion of our interior heart, we cannot know the full joy of loving Jesus.

And I never said or intended my post to sound like Bible-believing Protestants are second-class Christians and I believe God hears all peoples prayers, answers all prayers (maybe not the way we want) and He is praying for us all of us before God Our Father not just us Christians but all: Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, etc. I think that is one of my greatest joys in knowing Jesus is that He prays for me (and all people) personally before I even think to pray to Him. How Great Thou Art. We sung that Hymn in Church on Sunday - one of my favorite Hymns and I think written by a Protestant.

 

[peace2u2]

While I understand where you are coming from, without faith I’m still not sure it’s quite that clear or simple as you might make it out to be. What I mean by that is what Scripture and writings of ECFs may or may not support it would seem to me is still quite dependent to at least some degree on having faith in an interpretation of what was written. Interpretations of which there are many as you surely know. For you as a faithful Catholic naturally you have faith in the CC’s teaching authority and interpretations. Others come from other places with their particular experiences and understandings. Some of those understandings may have evolved over time. And I have no problem with that speaking from a place deep within my heart where I can’t see closing the lid on the box when we human beings have severe limitations and finite minds compared to the infinite Being all of us believers seek. It’s a part of what it means to have faith. Of which there are as well of course many as you surely know. Now can everyone be right on everything? Of course not. But in the end it is still by faith in which believers walk by not by sight.

Peace in yours to you, Peace2u2 (I love your chosen screen name!) and God bless!

In John 6:53 eat the flesh…drink his blood: Jesus is speaking literally and sacramentally. If he were speaking metaphorically or figuratively, his words would echo a Hebrew idiom where consuming flesh and blood refers to the brutalities of war (see Deut 32:42 and Ezek 39:17-18)
no life in you: (divine life)
Drinking the blood of animals is forbidden under the Old Covenant (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:10-13 and Deut. 12:16). To do so is to consume life that is merely natural and of a lower order than human life. Jesus’ injunction does not fall under these prohibition that those who walk away in John 6 think. The life that Jesus imparts is not natural but supernatural; it does not pull us down to the level of animals, but rather it elevates us to become sharers in his divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4 and also CCC1391)

2 other points regarding the consecrated host being more than just a symbol:

I listened a while back a YouTube video the conversion story an x-Satanist who converted to Catholicism, it was produced by Lighthouse Catholic Media and you could probably find it searching it on the internet but she said in her talk that if a Catholic priest placed 800 hosts on a table and only 1 out of the 800 were a consecrated host and placed before a congealed witch, the witch would be able to pick out the one consecrated host. Even Satan knows when the Real Presence of Jesus is before him and scripture does support this in Mark 1:24: What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God.

The point being this and I quote the words of Origen, “we should reverence every word of the Sacred Scriptures as we do every particle of the consecrated host, the Eucharist.”

Perhaps then the wound of separation shall be healed and Jesus’ Church will be one in unity.

Many blessings to you and your family.

 

[Sy_Noe]

In a way, that’s quite an odd assertion…

After all, Catholics who proclaim ‘certainty’ in their belief aren’t making a statement grounded in their own personal knowledge! It’s not like any Catholic could reasonably say, “I’ve researched all there is to be read about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation, and the Church Jesus founded, and therefore, based on my research, I can say with 100% certainty that the Catholic Church got it right!”

No… what a Catholic is saying, when s/he asserts ‘certainty’, is a statement of faith in the Church as the assembly that Jesus founded, and promised to protect, and promised to send the Holy Spirit to be with in order to assist its members. That ‘certainty’ isn’t in the realm of Newman’s illative sense, such that Catholics might say that they’ve pegged their individual ‘certainty meters’.

Rather, this ‘certainty’ in the fullness of the truth is the certainty that the Church teaches the fullness of the truth; its grounds are the belief that the Catholic Church faithfully preserves the teachings of Jesus, and the belief that it has the authority to govern the Church as passed down from Jesus to Peter and from Peter through all the popes.

Once one can say that he has this certainty, then assent to Church teaching is a matter of applying that belief to a particular teaching. It’s not that any particular teaching is a matter of personal interpretation, but rather, the application of two simple questions: did Christ give authority to the leaders of the Church? did Christ promise that the Church would ‘get it right’ – that its decrees would hold on earth and in heaven? If so, then there’s not a question of personal interpretation (or approval) of individual Church teachings, is there?

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. 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. So other than that, I think we’re not too far off from the same page. Blessings!

 

[PRmerger]

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. But I wholeheartedly agree without their faith and a 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. So other than that, I think we’re not too far off from the same page. Blessings!

I think you should say that too: “I believe or think I know that these kinds of military equipment have absolutely no place on our streets in the hands of city or small town cops, sheriffs, deputies or state troopers.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Faith cannot prove truth.

People can believe in all sorts of things.

When in doubt, obey the Church laws. They are absolute and clear and nothing to guess about…

When I hear toying with play on words in regards to the possibility of receiving the Eucharist in subjective relativism…it makes me very nervous

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think you should say that too: “I believe or think I know that these kinds of military equipment have absolutely no place on our streets in the hands of city or small town cops, sheriffs, deputies or state troopers.”

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.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Faith cannot prove truth.

People can believe in all sorts of things.

When in doubt, obey the Church laws. They are absolute and clear and nothing to guess about…

When I hear toying with play on words in regards to the possibility of receiving the Eucharist in subjective relativism…it makes me very nervous

Anytime I hear relativism brought up I have to say I don’t think anyone is saying truth is relative and that when good, well meaning people of faith sincerely are making a walk along their journeys and disagree on some things, that everyone can be right on everything. I know I’m not saying that. If my memory serves me correctly, even Pope Francis said something along the lines about those who are sincerely doing the walk. I think until we no longer are walking by faith but by sight that in the long run it will either be revealed who was right/wrong on some of these things or even that some of these matters of faith we humans spend time disagreeing on, may end up not mattering so much in the grand scheme of things. But yes I agree the laws are of course absolute for the faithful believing Catholic making their walk.

 

[Sy_Noe]

What evidence do you have for Mary’s conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit? Maybe it really was Joseph who fathered Jesus?

Or…it could be a “hidden action” in which the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Word became Flesh…but there is no evidence for this miraculous event.

There ya go PRmerger. Some things of faith are mysteries of it. Unlike how I’m looking outside my window right now and it isn’t raining but is sunny. That I know is truth. The sun is shining!

 

[Protestor]

However as it is known, not all Christians believe in the Real Presence and thus my query. If the bread is just a symbol, does it make sense to eat and ingest a mere symbol?

farm4.static.flickr.com/3799/13485357525_aee2241462_m.jpg

This is kind of like after watching the Jewish marriage ceremony if you asked “how can you break a symbol”. From the way you posed this question I assume you are either trolling or you are very young.

The ceremony in which the eucharist is ingested is symbolic or uses physical elements that are symbolic whichever description you prefer. I object to the use of “just” & “mere” since they don’t really make sense.

I could be wrong but I assume that you do not believe that there is a molecular change in the bread and wine that is blessed for the eucharist. If there is no actual physical change isn’t your what you call the “real presence” symbolic in nature. You could say that the real presence is more than symbolism or metaphor which I agree with, but tread carefully.

 

[rfournier103]

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…

 

[PRmerger]

There ya go PRmerger. Some things of faith are mysteries of it.

You are very Catholic when you say this!