How to explain to a Protestant that the Eucharist isn't cannabalism?

[Kliska]

The mistake I believe that Catholics make is to use John 6 as proof of the real presence, for the very reason you state. I am the bread of life, I am the door, etc are indeed metaphorical.

This is actually something similar to what a Catholic theologian was saying on EWTN (I only vaguely remember it, so can’t remember the source).

The Last Supper accounts, and St. Paul’s reiteration of them use a different language, however. In them, Christ does not say, I am this or that, the metaphorical language of John 6. Instead, He hold the bread in his hands and say, “This [bread] is my body.”
This is literal language. The direction and intention are completely different. John 6, in light of the Words of Institution, makes sense.

This is why I believe I’m more open to the Lutheran way of describing the mystery, though not completely. (I know that RC and Lutheran ideas here overlap, but aren’t held the same in detail the same way, from what I understand.) Still, from my perspective we can’t separate the direct Jewish context from the Passover supper. The “this” in “This is my body” was very specific in context of the “liturgy” of the feast, and that changes it to focus on direct *symbolic *components.

BTW, I think my idea of symbol and the power it holds is a bit different than some protestants; I would never intentionally say “just” a symbol because I believe that there is power in symbols and our interaction with them, that is why I also believe that if we don’t discern the body, as Paul says, we eat and drink damnation to ourselves, I just don’t interpret it the same as RC teachings, nor probably Lutheran teaching.

 

[hazcompat]

Blessed Fulton J Sheen

The Sacrament of the Eucharist has Two Sides: it is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament. Inasmuch as Biological Life is nothing but a ‘Reflection’, a ‘Dim Echo’, and a ‘Shadow’-of the Divine Life, One can find Analogies in the Natural Order, for the Beauties of the Divine. Does not Nature itself, have a Double Aspect: a Sacrifice and a Sacrament? The Vegetables which are served at-Table, the Meat which is presented on-the-Platter, are the Natural Sacraments of the Body of Man. By them, he Lives. If they were Endowed-with Speech, they would say: “Unless you have Communion with me, you will not Live”.

But if One inquires as-to ‘How’ the Lower Creation of Chemicals, Vegetables or Meats, came-to-be the ‘Sacrament’ or the ‘Communion’ of Man, One is immediately-introduced to the Idea-of Sacrifice. Did not the Vegetables have to be Pulled-up by their Roots from the Earth, Submitted-to the Law-of Death, and then Pass-through the Ordeal-of Fire, before they could become the Sacrament-of Physical Life, or have Communion-with the Body? Was not the Meat on the Platter, once a Living Thing, and was it not Submitted-to the Knife; its Blood, shed-on the Soil-of a Natural Gethsemane and Calvary, before it was Fit, to-be Presented-to Man?

Nature, therefore, suggests that a Sacrifice must Precede a Sacrament; Death is the Prelude-to a Communion. In some way, unless the Thing Dies, it does not Begin-to Live-in a Higher Kingdom. To have, for example, a Communion Service, without a Sacrifice, would be, in the Natural Order, like eating our Vegetables uncooked, and our Meat in the Raw. When we come face-to-face with the Realities-of Life, we see that we Live-by what we Slay. Elevating this, to the Supernatural Order, we still, live-by what we Slay. It was our Sins that Slew Christ on Calvary, and yet by the Power of God, Risen-from the Dead, and Reigning Gloriously in Heaven, He now becomes our Life, and has Communion with us, and we with Him. In the Divine Order, there must be the Sacrifice, or the Consecration-of the Mass, before there can be the Sacrament or the Communion of the Soul and God.

copiosa.org/sacraments/sacraments_sheen_eucharist.htm

Peace

 

[JonNC]

This is actually something similar to what a Catholic theologian was saying on EWTN (I only vaguely remember it, so can’t remember the source).

This is why I believe I’m more open to the Lutheran way of describing the mystery, though not completely. (I know that RC and Lutheran ideas here overlap, but aren’t held the same in detail the same way, from what I understand.) Still, from my perspective we can’t separate the direct Jewish context from the Passover supper. The “this” in “This is my body” was very specific in context of the “liturgy” of the feast, and that changes it to focus on direct *symbolic *components.

BTW, I think my idea of symbol and the power it holds is a bit different than some protestants; I would never intentionally say “just” a symbol because I believe that there is power in symbols and our interaction with them, that is why I also believe that if we don’t discern the body, as Paul says, we eat and drink damnation to ourselves, I just don’t interpret it the same as RC teachings, nor probably Lutheran teaching.

Your view sounds more Calvinist than Zwingli. though you don’t mention your communion.
My personal view is, while there are many reasons, the singular most important reason I could not be a member of virtually any other protestant (western non-Catholic) communion
is because of their views regarding the sacraments.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Your view sounds more Calvinist than Zwingli. though you don’t mention your communion. My personal view is, while there are many reasons, the singular most important reason I could not be a member of virtually any other protestant (western non-Catholic) communion is because of their views regarding the sacraments.

Jon

lol I’m a non-denominationalist rogue, truly non-denom, not the latest denom calling itself non-denom. My view is that grace doesn’t need a vehicle (though the tap or switch is faith), nor can I find agreement with the major churches that pull from scripture to describe such a vehicle. I understand the concept, I just can’t manage to find it in scripture (but see where others do).

 

[JonNC]

lol I’m a non-denominationalist rogue, truly non-denom, not the latest denom calling itself non-denom. My view is that grace doesn’t need a vehicle (though the tap or switch is faith), nor can I find agreement with the major churches that pull from scripture to describe such a vehicle. I understand the concept, I just can’t manage to find it in scripture (but see where others do).

From a Lutheran perspective, the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. It is in the church that the means of grace - the sacraments, and the preaching of the word are rightly heard. This is in keeping with Christ’s establishment of the Church at Pentecost. That “vehicle” is critically important, as it is there that Christ determined we would receive His means of grace, and be strengthened by the presence of the people of God, the Communion of Saints.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

From a Lutheran perspective, the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. It is in the church that the means of grace - the sacraments, and the preaching of the word are rightly heard. This is in keeping with Christ’s establishment of the Church at Pentecost. That “vehicle” is critically important, as it is there that Christ determined we would receive His means of grace, and be strengthened by the presence of the people of God, the Communion of Saints.

Jon

I do understand this. What I don’t see is this idea of the particular actions of church bodies such as baptism, confession, etc… that these are vehicles of grace proper. I don’t see that in scripture, nor that understanding. I see that they are called for and proper, but I don’t see the teaching of a vehicle of grace… in neither part: I see no vehicle, I see symbolic act, I see no unmerited favor transferred either, I see a showing forth of the faith we have and any grace given to us is through that faith that proceeds any action

Do you have any reading recommendation by Luther directly about the sacraments?

 

[JonNC]

I do understand this. What I don’t see is this idea of the particular actions of church bodies such as baptism, confession, etc… that these are vehicles of grace proper. I don’t see that in scripture, nor that understanding. I see that they are called for and proper, but I don’t see the teaching of a vehicle of grace… in neither part: I see no vehicle, I see symbolic act, I see no unmerited favor transferred either, I see a showing forth of the faith we have and any grace given to us is through that faith that proceeds any action

Do you have any reading recommendation by Luther directly about the sacraments?

Sure. The Small and Large Catechisms

www.bookofconcord.org

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Nope! Your understanding is bogus. Now you are stating what God needs to become: bread. God has no limits and your lack of understanding makes no difference.

Kliska:
You miss the point. Jesus said, “I AM the bread of life.” That is symbolic language because He has never been bread, wasn’t bread at the time, nor will ever be bread. That is also Catholic teaching. Bread becomes flesh according to transubstantiation not the other way around, hence “I AM the bread of life” is symbolic language.

Really? Name one early church father prior to the Reformation who teaches your position as being orthodox? And you forget to take it one step further. Yes…no Catholic thelogian will negate what is symbolic:door,vine,etc. But here is the difference:

Jesus never once places his hands on a door or vine and blesses them and says: This is MY Body. Does he? Does he say to consume a door? A vine? Does the door give us eternal life? Big difference! Did Jews eat a literal lamb at the Pesach meals or a cookie cut-out only symbolizing a lamb?

BTW: If it is symbolic, how strange Jesus never stresses its symbolic nature when he is questioned? Jesus always clears things up when there is confusion or misunderstanding…not in John 6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
True interpretation? The whole symbolic argument is a result of Protestanism. Name one early church father defending the symbolic Eucharist and attacking the Catholic/Orthodox teaching?

I took the time to look up conversations on this on the forum. There are many and they obviously never end in agreement. I can indeed name them and their works, but it will do absolutely no good.

There is no agreement because there is NOT one early church father who ever taught or defended the notion of a symbolic Eucharist. None! Your position is a novelty in the ancient liturgical churches.

Grace and Peace to you.

Likewise

 

[Nicea325]

The Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican teaching.

Good to see you again, btw, Nicea.

Jon

You to my brother

 

[Kliska]

Really? Name one early church father prior to the Reformation who teaches your position as being orthodox? And you forget to take it one step further. Yes…no Catholic thelogian will negate what is symbolic:door,vine,etc. But here is the difference:

I’m sorry, I’ve already said I will not go there. I’ve looked up those discussions on this forum and they never seem to edify anyone involved. Needless to say I strongly feel there are early teachers in the RC that don’t hold to the teaching described by the word transubstantiation.

Jesus never once places his hands on a door or vine and blesses them and says: This is MY Body. Does he? Does he say to consume a door? A vine? Does the door give us eternal life? Big difference! Did Jews eat a literal lamb at the Pesach meals or a cookie cut-out only symbolizing a lamb?

I’ve been respectful of your belief in transubstantiation, please be respectful of my belief in holy, meaningful, and powerful symbols, as we are both talking about Jesus, and the Lord’s Supper I’d hope we’d both want to keep that in mind. No one here is claiming a “cookie cut-out” of anything. If you review the dialogue, you will see the debate was about the phrase “I AM the bread of life” and whether that phrase is literal or not. It isn’t, even by RC standards. The Door does indeed give us eternal life, and that Door is Jesus Christ. We better hope we abide in the Vine as branches. These are meaningful symbols.

BTW: If it is symbolic, how strange Jesus never stresses its symbolic nature when he is questioned? Jesus always clears things up when there is confusion or misunderstanding…not in John 6.

No, He doesn’t. Quite the opposite. If someone misunderstands and and gets mad and/or leaves, He lets them. He spoke in hard to understand teachings on purpose.

There is no agreement because there is NOT one early church father who ever taught or defended the notion of a symbolic Eucharist. None! Your position is a novelty in the ancient liturgical churches.

I’m sorry, but I disagree after studying specific writings of some early teachers in the RC. I see both ideas represented; literal and symbolic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Exactly, in RC teaching the bread becomes Jesus, Jesus doesn’t become bread. I AM the bread of life is therefore symbolic, to be literal Jesus would have to become bread and He doesn’t do that; His substance never changes (the bread changes).

I think that’s as much as I can explain it to you. As I said earlier, I hope I don’t have to explain to a Protestant about the Eucharist being cannibalism because I think by definition it is. We can qualify that it is not exactly cannibalism because Christ is not ordinary human thus his flesh when eaten does not exactly constitute cannibalism.

From my understanding, your argument is just semantic. Bread is food to be eaten and Jesus becomes food to be eaten in the Eucharist. He is thus the bread of life. I also can understand that if you mean bread to be the word, I have no problem with that.

My explanation is strictly in simple term that can be understood by ordinary lay people. You can however read for yourself the theological explanation which can be found easily here in CA or other Catholic sites.

The scripture reference can only give background for the Eucharist but it does not tell you its details. You have to go to the Church’s Tradtion for that. That can contribute to the difficulty perhaps to this argument because we may have different sources for them.

Yet, in the partaking of the last supper the symbol put forth by Jesus wasn’t the Lamb (because Jesus was literally going to be killed), but rather the Matzoh bread, a specific piece of matzoh bread with a specific Jewish blessing said over it and broken. A specific cup of wine in the Passover feast was blessed with a specific Jewish blessing. We can’t remove those elements from the Jewish context and understand fully what Jesus was showing forth.

I would not go into this. The Passover lamb was one that is killed and to be eaten as in Exodus before the deliverance of the Israelites. I could however mix up some of the fact there. That prefigured Jesus own sacrifice – he is the lamb, killed and consumed for our own deliverance. So the element of eating is there.

I agree, we need unmerited favor (grace), but I see we tap into it by faith (trust), not sacraments/physical works. So, Abraham faithed and it was counted for righteousness, did he also get up and move? Sure. But it was the faith that tapped into the grace. We are indeed continually sanctified, but salvation in the age of grace (from my protestant perspective) isn’t an ongoing process, it is an event.

Sacraments are graces – outward signs for inward grace. Most of the times, though not all the times, Jesus did not just say be healed, be forgiven, or go out and see but he did them with premeditated actions. It takes faith also to believe that Jesus could be the bread to be eaten literally.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

We are indeed continually sanctified, but salvation in the age of grace (from my protestant perspective) isn’t an ongoing process, it is an event.

Salvation can be lost if we sin against the Lord and go astray. We need to be strengthened everyday against the onslaught of the culture of the world and the Evil One otherwise we will fall. We need God’s grace that’s available to us to strengthen us in our spiritual journey. We can begin in the Spirit and end up in the flesh. We certainly need God’s grace to stay in the Spirit.

 

[tjones80]

In Corinthians 11:23 Paul discusses that the person receiving the Eucharist most examine their soul for sin and most be properly prepared to receive it. If this is just a symbolic jester or custom then such an examination of ones self would not be required.

 

[Kliska]

We can qualify that it is not exactly cannibalism because Christ is not ordinary human thus his flesh when eaten does not exactly constitute cannibalism.

Most protestants don’t believe in the idea of transubstantiation anyway, so to them, it would never be cannibalism regardless. Most are trying to make sure they understand the “literalness” teaching of transubstantiation, or are trying to make a point by “shocking” with the idea of cannibalism.

From my understanding, your argument is just semantic. Bread is food to be eaten and Jesus becomes food to be eaten in the Eucharist. He is thus the bread of life. I also can understand that if you mean bread to be the word, I have no problem with that.

My only argument is that John 6 clearly uses symbolic language (I AM the Bread of Life), though His substance never becomes bread. That Jesus sets it up that way to teach spiritual truth to people that wanted a free meal.

The scripture reference can only give background for the Eucharist but it does not tell you its details. You have to go to the Church’s Tradtion for that.

I understand and have access to all of that, and have studied the writings, catechism, etc… I do appreciate speaking about things one-on-one because it helps me to really understand the perspective of a modern practicing catholic.

I would not go into this. The Passover lamb was one that is killed and to be eaten as in Exodus before the deliverance of the Israelites. I could however mix up some of the fact there. That prefigured Jesus own sacrifice – he is the lamb, killed and consumed for our own deliverance. So the element of eating is there.

I agree, but I also find it extremely important (as do you I know) to see that the bread takes central stage at the Last Supper rather than the Lamb meat. Studying all of the Passover components and how they apply is fascinating.

Sacraments are graces – outward signs for inward grace.

I do understand this perspective. I just don’t see the teaching that the physical acts are what tap into grace. The faith aspect I think we agree on though.

God bless.

Grace and Peace!

Salvation can be lost if we sin against the Lord and go astray. We need to be strengthened everyday against the onslaught of the culture of the world and the Evil One otherwise we will fall. … We can begin in the Spirit and end up in the flesh. We certainly need God’s grace to stay in the Spirit.

I’m on of those protestants that reads scripture and sees a different teaching; that sin cannot separate us from God from the moment we are sealed by the Spirit. Once adopted by God, and He is our Father, that adoption will never be undone. A sheep can never become a goat, even if they act like one, and our Shepherd is a Good Shepherd who hunts down strays. A wheat cannot become a tare even though they may look similar. Can we become as the Devil and turn our back on Him? I’m much more willing to believe that.

We don’t keep God, He keeps us, and promises not to let us go. What He starts, He shall finish or perfect.

But we agree that it all boils down to God’s grace and love to enable us to follow His will.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.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.

In context we are to examine ourselves to make sure of several things, namely that we don’t eat and drink unworthily. Unworthily is an adverb, not an adjective. The adverb describes how we partake, not our state of sin. The people here were not coming together as the body of Christ and participating in communion properly. Some came drunk, some came hungry, they were not celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the proper manner, and as such were not focusing on Jesus, and the fact that when we take communion we are showing forth the Sacrifice. So, before partaking you examine yourself to make sure you are going to partake in a worthy manner, or else none of us would ever partake because none of us are ever worthy.

You use the word “just.” I would never say that; participation in symbolic acts are not futile, they are not “just” anything, but rather extraordinarily important on several levels, and actually do have effects on the participants, including spiritual and physical effects.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Really? Name one early church father prior to the Reformation who teaches your position as being orthodox? And you forget to take it one step further. Yes…no Catholic thelogian will negate what is symbolic:door,vine,etc. But here is the difference:

Kliska:
I’m sorry, I’ve already said I will not go there. I’ve looked up those discussions on this forum and they never seem to edify anyone involved. Needless to say I strongly feel there are early teachers in the RC that don’t hold to the teaching described by the word transubstantiation.

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong.Again…not ONE early church father denied or rejected transubstantiation. Simply because the word is not used or mentioned does not negate it was practiced or believed. Name one writer of the NT who mentions the word Trinity? How about Hypostatic Union? Where those beliefs rejected by orthodox Christians simply because the words were not used?

Quote:
Jesus never once places his hands on a door or vine and blesses them and says: This is MY Body. Does he? Does he say to consume a door? A vine? Does the door give us eternal life? Big difference! Did Jews eat a literal lamb at the Pesach meals or a cookie cut-out only symbolizing a lamb?

I’ve been respectful of your belief in transubstantiation, please be respectful of my belief in holy, meaningful, and powerful symbols, as we are both talking about Jesus, and the Lord’s Supper I’d hope we’d both want to keep that in mind. No one here is claiming a “cookie cut-out” of anything. If you review the dialogue, you will see the debate was about the phrase “I AM the bread of life” and whether that phrase is literal or not. It isn’t, even by RC standards. The Door does indeed give us eternal life, and that Door is Jesus Christ. We better hope we abide in the Vine as branches. These are meaningful symbols.

I beg your pardon? I simply asked you if the Jews ate a symbolic lamb or anctual tangent one? How is that offensive? Yes…Jesus is the bread of life which is HIS Body,soul.blood,divinity…which is not symbolic. Again,did Jews eat a literal lamb or symbolic one? That flies in the face of the Passover meal which included an actual literal lamb for consumption. Nothing symbolic there. A foreshadowing of the true lamb of God: Jesus.

Sorry…but consuming symbols does not give eternal life. Again…Jesus is symbolically the door,but never once blesses a door and asked us to eat it-does he? If it is not literal and only symbolic,why would he even bother to tell us to consume the bread and wine? Again…the Jews ate a real lamb…not a symbolic one. It makes no sense to have a tangent lamb under the OT laws and yet revert to a symbolic one who just happens to be God in the flesh.

Quote:
BTW: If it is symbolic, how strange Jesus never stresses its symbolic nature when he is questioned? Jesus always clears things up when there is confusion or misunderstanding…not in John 6.

No, He doesn’t. Quite the opposite. If someone misunderstands and and gets mad and/or leaves, He lets them. He spoke in hard to understand teachings on purpose.

Oh yes…he does. Don’t his own 12 Apostles ask him to explain certain “hard” teachings? The 12 knew exactly what he meant in John 6 and it most certainly was not symbolic in any nature.Likewise, I find it a bit odd how St.Paul uses such strong language for a “symbol” of the Lord in 1 Cor. 11 about eating the Lord’s Body in a dishonorable way?

Quote:
There is no agreement because there is NOT one early church father who ever taught or defended the notion of a symbolic Eucharist. None! Your position is a novelty in the ancient liturgical churches.

I’m sorry, but I disagree after studying specific writings of some early teachers in the RC. I see both ideas represented; literal and symbolic.

Not when it applies to the Eucharist. Again…not ONE early church father ever supported or taught the Protestant notion of a mere symbolic Eucharist…not ONE!

 

[Kliska]

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong.Again…not ONE early church father denied or rejected transubstantiation. Simply because the word is not used or mentioned does not negate it was practiced or believed. Name one writer of the NT who mentions the word Trinity? How about Hypostatic Union? Where those beliefs rejected by orthodox Christians simply because the words were not used?

Sorry, I see direct teaching that promotes the symbolic nature of the bread and wine, and it will do no good to argue the point here. Indeed there are teachings on the Real Presence as well, but not all agree.

I beg your pardon? I simply asked you if the Jews ate a symbolic lamb or anctual tangent one? How is that offensive?

You are presenting a straw man argument with rhetorical language “cookie-cutter” indeed.

Yes…Jesus is the bread of life which is HIS Body,soul.blood,divinity…which is not symbolic.

Does Jesus’ substance change to the substance of bread? No. Not even in your own teaching.

Sorry…but consuming symbols does not give eternal life.

Right. Faith does. Proper target of faith? Jesus.

Again…Jesus is symbolically the door,but never once blesses a door and asked us to eat it-does he? If it is not literal and only symbolic,why would he even bother to tell us to consume the bread and wine?

Have you not read Paul? To show forth the sacrifice of Christ for all time.

Again…the Jews ate a real lamb…not a symbolic one. It makes no sense to have a tangent lamb under the OT laws and yet revert to a symbolic one who just happens to be God in the flesh.

If this is the case, we would eat Lamb at communion instead. Literal Lamb. We don’t. Why? Because Jesus didn’t pick that symbol, but rather the particular piece of Jewish Matzoh, and the particular cup instead.

Oh yes…he does. Don’t his own 12 Apostles ask him to explain certain “hard” teachings? The 12 knew exactly what he meant in John 6 and it most certainly was not symbolic in any nature.Likewise, I find it a bit odd how St.Paul uses such strong language for a “symbol” of the Lord in 1 Cor. 11 about eating the Lord’s Body in a dishonorable way?

We aren’t talking about those who stayed, but rather those who get mad, leave, try to stone Him, etc… I’ve explained 1 Cor. 11 already.

Not when it applies to the Eucharist. Again…not ONE early church father ever supported or taught the Protestant notion of a mere symbolic Eucharist…not ONE!

I disagree.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong.Again…not ONE early church father denied or rejected transubstantiation. Simply because the word is not used or mentioned does not negate it was practiced or believed. Name one writer of the NT who mentions the word Trinity? How about Hypostatic Union? Where those beliefs rejected by orthodox Christians simply because the words were not used?

Sorry, I see direct teaching that promotes the symbolic nature of the bread and wine, and it will do no good to argue the point here. Indeed there are teachings on the Real Presence as well, but not all agree.

Again…not one early church father. Present me one work by any church father who defends only a symbolic Eucharist?

Quote:
I beg your pardon? I simply asked you if the Jews ate a symbolic lamb or anctual tangent one? How is that offensive?

You are presenting a straw man argument with rhetorical language “cookie-cutter” indeed.

Straw man argument when one cannot admit error. So the Jews ate an actual lamb-right? Nothing straw man about it!

Quote:
Yes…Jesus is the bread of life which is HIS Body,soul.blood,divinity…which is not symbolic.

Does Jesus’ substance change to the substance of bread? No. Not even in your own teaching.

Do you even understand the CC teaching? Your previous comment that Jesus needs to become bread says otherwise.

Quote:
Sorry…but consuming symbols does not give eternal life.

Right. Faith does. Proper target of faith? Jesus.

EXACTLY! Just like you have faith God incarnated and resurrected from the dead. Now just apply to the Eucharist.

Quote:
Again…Jesus is symbolically the door,but never once blesses a door and asked us to eat it-does he? If it is not literal and only symbolic,why would he even bother to tell us to consume the bread and wine?

Have you not read Paul? To show forth the sacrifice of Christ for all time.

Well? Did Jesus ever bless a door and say to consume it? Door is symbolic right? So why bless bread and wine and consume it-if it is only symbolic?

Quote:
Again…the Jews ate a real lamb…not a symbolic one. It makes no sense to have a tangent lamb under the OT laws and yet revert to a symbolic one who just happens to be God in the flesh.

If this is the case, we would eat Lamb at communion instead. Literal Lamb. We don’t. Why? Because Jesus didn’t pick that symbol, but rather the particular piece of Jewish Matzoh, and the particular cup instead.

Oh but it is the case. We consume the Lamb of God (Jesus) who takes away the sins of the world. Didn’t one’s sin transfer into a little lamb? Yes! Isn’t God in the Flesh a bit more significant than an animal? They are called types in the Bible. Just like Adam was a type of Jesus and so forth.

Quote:
Oh yes…he does. Don’t his own 12 Apostles ask him to explain certain “hard” teachings? The 12 knew exactly what he meant in John 6 and it most certainly was not symbolic in any nature.Likewise, I find it a bit odd how St.Paul uses such strong language for a “symbol” of the Lord in 1 Cor. 11 about eating the Lord’s Body in a dishonorable way?

We aren’t talking about those who stayed, but rather those who get mad, leave, try to stone Him, etc… I’ve explained 1 Cor. 11 already.

Really? Is that why he turns around and asked the 12 if they wanted to leave after teaching about eating His flesh? You mean to tell me those who left took such offense to symbolism? Not one person who left understood or knew the difference between Jesus being literal or symbolic?

Quote:
Not when it applies to the Eucharist. Again…not ONE early church father ever supported or taught the Protestant notion of a mere symbolic Eucharist…not ONE!

I disagree.

And yet you have to provide a single of evidence. Again…name ONE ECF who taught the Protestant notion of only a symbolic Eucharist?

 

[Kliska]

Again…not one early church father. Present me one work by any church father who defends only a symbolic Eucharist?

I already said, I’m not going to do it. It leads to no edifying conversation, and that is against scriptural practice for me.

Straw man argument when one cannot admit error. So the Jews ate an actual lamb-right? Nothing straw man about it!

Straw man is when you take an argument of the opposing side and twist it. That is what you are doing.

Do you even understand the CC teaching? Your previous comment that Jesus needs to become bread says otherwise.

“I AM the Bread of Life” is symbolic. Period. Your teaching is that bread becomes Jesus, not the other way around. I’m done re-presenting this clarification. That symbolic language sets up John 6 as symbolic.

EXACTLY! Just like you have faith God incarnated and resurrected from the dead. Now just apply to the Eucharist.

Faith in Him is not the same as faith in any other object. Faith in another object or thing or person is idolatry.

Well? Did Jesus ever bless a door and say to consume it? Door is symbolic right? So why bless bread and wine and consume it-if it is only symbolic?

Asked and answered.

Oh but it is the case. We consume the Lamb of God (Jesus) who takes away the sins of the world. Didn’t one’s sin transfer into a little lamb? Yes! Isn’t God in the Flesh a bit more significant than an animal? They are called types in the Bible. Just like Adam was a type of Jesus and so forth.

You don’t eat literal Lamb at Mass. I’m pretty sure of this one.

Really? Is that why he turns around and asked the 12 if they wanted to leave after teaching about eating His flesh? You mean to tell me those who left took such offense to symbolism? Not one person who left understood or knew the difference between Jesus being literal or symbolic?

No, they took offense because they were mistaken… and they were also bummed He wasn’t handing out free food.

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;11403832]Again…not one early church father. Present me one work by any church father who defends only a symbolic Eucharist?

Luther:
**"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. 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." **

But to be sure, to say that the Fathers did not speak against Transubstantiation excludes the fact that they did not speak of it at all. They spoke of the real presence, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Even as a Lutheran, I have never read any writing of any ECF that I would disagree with on the real presence.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Again…not one early church father. Present me one work by any church father who defends only a symbolic Eucharist?

I already said, I’m not going to do it. It leads to no edifying conversation, and that is against scriptural practice for me.

You cannot do it because not one church father ever exhaustively defends the Eucharist as being solely symbolic. Makes no difference to refuse to do it, history says otherwise and I prefer to listen to men who lived much closer to Christ than someone 2,000 years later.

Quote:
Straw man argument when one cannot admit error. So the Jews ate an actual lamb-right? Nothing straw man about it!

Straw man is when you take an argument of the opposing side and twist it. That is what you are doing.

Come again? Twist it? I am not twisting anything in regards to the Eucharist. Protestants are responsible for twisting it into something never taught or believed until 1500 years later.

Quote:
Do you even understand the CC teaching? Your previous comment that Jesus needs to become bread says otherwise.

“I AM the Bread of Life” is symbolic. Period. Your teaching is that bread becomes Jesus, not the other way around. I’m done re-presenting this clarification. That symbolic language sets up John 6 as symbolic.

Nope! No amount of denials will change the fact…you are wrong…PERIOD! History proves you wrong…period! Again…why even bother to consume symbolism,if it is ONLY symbolism? What would be the difference of consuming a symbolic vine or bread or weed…if it is only symbolic? Jesus never blesses any other material object and tells us to eat it.Not logical to consume an actual tangent lamb at the Passover meals,but now God reverts to pure symbolism?

Quote:
EXACTLY! Just like you have faith God incarnated and resurrected from the dead. Now just apply to the Eucharist.

Faith in Him is not the same as faith in any other object. Faith in another object or thing or person is idolatry.

Objects? EXACTLY! Listen to what you just stated:

Faith in another object or thing or person is idolatry

That would mean** EVERY church father would be guilty of teaching idolatry **based on a false teaching called the Real Presence.

As I once asked another Protestant: Where are the ancient protests for such a false teaching? Where are the scores of writings by EVERY church father defending the symbolic Eucharist;hence the true orthodox teaching? Sources…please

Quote:
Well? Did Jesus ever bless a door and say to consume it? Door is symbolic right? So why bless bread and wine and consume it-if it is only symbolic?

Asked and answered.

So the Jews merely ate a lamb which looked liked a lamb,but really wasn’t literally a real lamb?

Quote:
Oh but it is the case. We consume the Lamb of God (Jesus) who takes away the sins of the world. Didn’t one’s sin transfer into a little lamb? Yes! Isn’t God in the Flesh a bit more significant than an animal? They are called types in the Bible. Just like Adam was a type of Jesus and so forth.

You don’t eat literal Lamb at Mass. I’m pretty sure of this one.

Apparently you do not understand what types or foreshadowings are in the Bible-do you? We say at Mass:

Lamb of God who takes aways sins of the world.

Who is the TRUE lamb of God? Small little animals who were repeatedly sacrificial victims or our TRUE Lamb of God who incarnated?

Lambs were sacrificial victims-right? Was not Jesus our sacrificial lamb for humanity?

No different than with the whole Sabbath worship which Seven Day Adventists constantly misunderstand. The Sabbath was a type of salvation not yet complete until when? The arrival of the messiah.

Quote:
Really? Is that why he turns around and asked the 12 if they wanted to leave after teaching about eating His flesh? You mean to tell me those who left took such offense to symbolism? Not one person who left understood or knew the difference between Jesus being literal or symbolic?

No, they took offense because they were mistaken… and they were also bummed He wasn’t handing out free food.

:ehh: So NOT ONE Jew present there could distinguish between literal and symbolic? Really?