Is the Eucharist only a Symbol?

[po18guy]

Correct, essentially…except that is in most timelines a year later. So people were confused for a year? Kind of blows away the confusion argument…

Rather, it shows that many lacked faith in His words.

And Peter answers that belief in Christ is “eternal life” unless you think I get eternal life if I take the Eucharist…which if that is all it takes…

You are oversimplifying. We are commanded by Christ to take and eat, take and drink. We do so out of obedience to His Word. Grace through faith, and the spiritual food and drink of the Eucharist. “Do this, as often as you do it, in memory of me” and we do. But, it is more than a memorial, or He would not have proclaimed it His Body and Blood, would He? Jesus did not waste words.

I do not think the 12 took him literally at all. Certainly not. As far the Catholic Church believing it or others…the Bible is filled with people getting things wrong from the get go.

As I have stated before, your position asumes that the Twelve, all of the early Christians, the early church fathers, the martyrs, the successors to the apostles and the hundreds of succeeding generations are all confused, and have consistently been for 1,975 years about what Jesus said. And you just said that one year was too long to be confused. We go by what Jesus said and by what He did, from Church history. It’s not all in the incomplete bible.

It is the non-belief in Christ’s Eucharistic words that are the novelty. This unbelief suddenly appeared 500 years ago, when so much else of Christianity was also jettisoned, reducing it to a “lowest common denominator” faith. It continues to shatter into tiny pieces. Think of what has been lost.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are oversimplifying. We are commanded by Christ to take and eat, take and drink. We do so out of obedience to His Word. Grace through faith, and the spiritual food and drink of the Eucharist. “Do this, as often as you do it, in memory of me” and we do. But, it is more than a memorial, or He would not have proclaimed it His Body and Blood, would He? Jesus did not waste words.

 

[happilycatholic]

BTW there wernt enough threads on the subject you had to start another one?

Why did you respond? Just to make this empty comment?

Awesome.

 

[po18guy]

I am not oversimplifying. I am taking your literal position at face value. Something you just did not do.

HUH? You lost me here.

In speaking to people who think that Christ never allowed people to be confused, something contrary to scripture, I showed that this argument starts with a faulty premise. I do not think that people were always confused. I do believe the twelve understood him.

For some odd reason, the twelve all practiced the Eucharist. So, they were not confused.

I know there are writers who speak of this literally but Ignatius is interpolated and Martyr is probably a believer in the literal view. There are several groups who did not take this literally. There have been groups outside of the instiutional church who held otherwise. Of course most of our evidence about the Waldensians, as early as 1120, and the Paulicians are ignored. I am not speaking about a Landmarkism please understand.

Here, you are pointing to each and every exception, and not to the rule. The historical rule has been the Eucharist. Written words can be twisted, but Christ’s practices and face-to-face commands were not confused. Thus, you have the Catholic and Orthodox churches practicing an ancient faith, jut as they were taught. Just as was handed on to them, as Paul said to do.

500 years ago only if you ignore the hunted and persecuted church outside of Rome.

This was heresy, which was an affront to God. All heresy is sinful, since it perverts the truth. That is why the Church of that time, in conjunction with civil governments, did what they did to stamp out heresy. Souls were being lost. That was a much different time, so we cannot judge with today’s glasses, since society and government have radically changed sine then.

I interact with you as a brother in Christ, and because your soul is worth it. Your particular beliefs are very young and have no foundation in Church history, that’s why I am concerned about you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I do understand that the Catholic and Orthodox church were in the majority and teach this. I believe this incorrect interpretation took old. Only when God, in His time, revealed the truth through his words for all to see, did people begin to see the error of their ways.
Such is the case with the Bible, people are in error, but God reveals his truth and people ignore it.
The twelve took part in the Lords Supper. A meal. What you define as heresy can work both ways. So that is meaningless. What matters is what Christ taught. Now, do you wish to look at it again?

 

[TomaszA]

Rightlydivide,

I do understand that the Catholic and Orthodox church were in the majority and teach this. I believe this incorrect interpretation took old. Only when God, in His time, revealed the truth through his words for all to see, did people begin to see the error of their ways.
Such is the case with the Bible, people are in error, but God reveals his truth and people ignore it.
The twelve took part in the Lords Supper. A meal. What you define as heresy can work both ways. So that is meaningless. What matters is what Christ taught. Now, do you wish to look at it again?

It’s impossible for the Church of God to universally bind men in error.

You’re opening the way to question everything, including the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus, and Bible.

Jesus promised He would be with us until the end of time, that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church, and that His Church will never be overcome.

To say the Church is in error is like saying Scripture can be in error.

 

[O.S.Luke]

O.S. luke

You say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ brings about AD NAUSEAM, in YOU when you hear/read it said again and again?

I didn’t say it brought about ad nauseam. I said that it had been discussed ad nauseam here on CAF. You really need to re-read my post and quote me ACCURATELY.

You are a Methodist, do you receive the EUCHARIST every day or every Sunday and if so, does this bring about you AD NAUSEAM when you so so?

It sounds like if it brings about Ad Nauseam in you when you hear Eucharist discussed again and again, you must feel this Ad Nauseam when you also partake of the Eucharist every Sunday or any day of the week?

Irrelevant. I didn’t say anything of the kind. You are putting words into my mouth. You evidently haven’t read my signature, either. I don’t think you know your Latin very well either. The phrase ad nauseam used in this context means that something has been discussed to death. I didn’t say that the Eucharist made me sick. Good grief and give us all a break.

I receive the Eucharist on the average of twice a week.

The Eucahrist, does not “represent” Jesus Christ, IT IS JESUS CHRIST CHRIST.

]

The Eucharist, does not represents something else by “association”. THE EUCHARIST AND JESUS CHRIST IS ONE AND THE SAME!
What I said was that is was a symbol AND that it is Jesus Christ. You should read more carefully. Sacraments are mysteries, and thus, they are more than a both/and. They are and can be an either/or. Such is the Mystery of Faith.

God Bless you on your journey HOME

I’ve been home for a long time. Thank you, though. God bless you too.

 

[Nino]

Yes,Jesus always spoke in a way that was clear as a bell! Many times he would use examples familiar to the listener. In this telling episode He did NOT clear His throat and cry out as some of the audience started to leave…“hey fellas,I’m only kidding of course,I am speaking in general terms,in a symbolic way” No,instead He let them go for they did not have the faith that was needed.Many have contacted me re: Heart of a Priest,the film about Fr.John Houle SJ and his imprisonment in a Red Chinese cell back in the early 50s. In the short film he opens a package and for the first time he finds something hidden on the bottom .Usually the package is empty of anthing,re; food,clothes etc as it was rifled by the guards,but this one time there was a small glass of Mass Wine and hosts!!!'How,How he cried and then that evening when the cell block was quiet he finally has a golden chance to ‘say the mass’ and the film ends with dramatic photos of the father and his voice praying in Latin performing the most sacred act a priest has the devine privilege to do…altho it was a filmstrip it is powerful and I recall the audiences always were silent and awed! When the film ended and the lights would go on the applause for the Priest and the Mass was overwhelming.Many a tear was shed. In one of his letters to me was the telling line…'and where are the other nine?! I would use a film strip projector and a tape recorder . When one has the Truth on ones side nothing fancy is needed.amen and amen…

 

[po18guy]

I do understand that the Catholic and Orthodox church were in the majority and teach this. I believe this incorrect interpretation took old. Only when God, in His time, revealed the truth through his words for all to see, did people begin to see the error of their ways.
Such is the case with the Bible, people are in error, but God reveals his truth and people ignore it.
The twelve took part in the Lords Supper. A meal. What you define as heresy can work both ways. So that is meaningless. What matters is what Christ taught. Now, do you wish to look at it again?

Simple answer: No. It teaches without authority and I reject it outright. It likely has truth in it, but not all of the truth. The wholeness of truth has already been deposited in Christ’s Church for all succeeding generations to draw upon. It remains for you, as well.

Two questions:

1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?
2. Does the demon divide?

It’s just that simple.

 

[po18guy]

Rightlydivide,

It’s impossible for the Church of God to universally bind men in error.

You’re opening the way to question everything, including the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus, and Bible.

Jesus promised He would be with us until the end of time, that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church, and that His Church will never be overcome.

To say the Church is in error is like saying Scripture can be in error.

Funny, isn’t it, that all of the denominations who trust the Catholic Church for each line of scripture in their bibles distrust her in everything else…

Either the Church had the authority to determine scripture or it did not. If it did not, we must burn our bibles as heresy. No one is willing to do that, right?

1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?
2. Does the demon divide?

Oh, let’s throw a third one in there:
3. Does God reward obedience, or disobedience?

 

[Hisalone]

O.S. luke

You say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ brings about AD NAUSEAM, in YOU when you hear/read it said again and again?

You are a Methodist, do you receive the EUCHARIST every day or every Sunday and if so, does this bring about you AD NAUSEAM when you so so?

It sounds like if it brings about Ad Nauseam in you when you hear Eucharist discussed again and again, you must feel this Ad Nauseam when you also partake of the Eucharist every Sunday or any day of the week?

O.S., you must remember where you are, you are here at a Catholic Website! I will use Our Lords strong words such as “INDEED,”… “I SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU”…“TRUELY, TRUELY” and as in the Kings James verision “VERILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU” you will hear/read about the MOST HOLY EUCHARIST again and again 70X7 times, here at this Catholic Forum Amen! “TRANSUBSTANTIATION”

For we Catholics Show are true colors/SHOW ARE TRUE WORSHIP, when it comes to the EUCHARIST OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST/ THAT IS HIM! No matter how many, many times we hear or recieve Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, there is never, never Ad Nauseam! Amen

And I see your true colors of Ad Nauseam toward the Eucharist, when heard ONLY a few times.

**O.S. Luke, you mentioned above that “In one sense, the Eucharist is a symbol”

Luke, If Our Lord came down to you in BODY from heaven and showed you his nail marks on his hands and feet, his pireced side, OS Luke, would you think of him right there and then STILL as a “SYMBOL”, or being there in front of you TRUELY BEING GOD and MAN, BODY, SOUL, and DIVINITY?**

**Luke, the definition of SYMBOL is “Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.” ** Now that being said…

B]The Eucahrist, does not “represent” Jesus Christ, IT IS JESUS CHRIST CHRIST.]

The Eucharist, does not represents something else by “association”. THE EUCHARIST AND JESUS CHRIST IS ONE AND THE SAME!

**The Eucharist, does not “resemble” Jesus Christ, IT IS JESUS CHRIST, TOTALY!. HEART, MIND, NAIL MARKS, A PIRCED SIDE, THAT HE SUFFERED FOR US ALL! ALSO IS HIS GLORY THAT HE HAS WITH HIS FATHER **

The Eucharist is not a “material object” used to represent something invisable. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ VISABLE 100% VISABLE, BODY, SOUL and DIVINITY! AMEN

THERFORE THE EUCHARIST IS NOT A "SYMBOL"

God Bless you on your journey HOME

Ufamtobie

Wy do you feel it cecessary to twist is words?
Us ut glorifying God?

 

[Hisalone]

Why did you respond? Just to make this empty comment?

Awesome.

 

[BrianH]

Funny, isn’t it, that all of the denominations who trust the Catholic Church for each line of scripture in their bibles distrust her in everything else…

Either the Church had the authority to determine scripture or it did not. If it did not, we must burn our bibles as heresy. No one is willing to do that, right?

1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?
2. Does the demon divide?

Oh, let’s throw a third one in there:
3. Does God reward obedience, or disobedience?

You must not assume that Protestants think that the Catholic Church determined each line of scripture. It completely depends on which stream of scriptures one’s Bible has. Many Protestant Bibles follow the same stream as the Orthodox.

 

[Eucharisted]

Your church perhaps…not mine

I’m talking about the Church, the Church of Christ, which subsides in the Catholic Church.

Where do you get that?

Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary. It is the same Holy Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, but in an unbloody manner. I got it from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You can conflate the Eucharist and Calvary. We do not literally do that.

You misunderstand. If Jesus had not been the Messiah, than He would not have - as propheciesed - instituted the Eucharist, which is His Body, as the Lamb of God; hence, He would have been violating the Passover if He hadn’t fulfilled it, spiritually in the Upper Room and corporally at Calvary.

Well…

The Father sends the Holy Spirit to sanctify the bread and wine, transforming their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ; the accients of the gifts, however, stay the same, which is why we receive Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. If the Eucharist was only a symbol, we would be committing idoltry.

Would only an insane person call himself a door too? Or a gate?

Jesus meant what He said, so if He was insane, yes. But since He is not insane but rather the Lord, we can trust Him, because God is the Truth, and the Truth cannot decieve nor be deceived or else it wouldn’t be the Truth - so when Jesus speaks, He speaks in character. When He says the bread is truly His Body and the wine is truly His Blood, we can truly trust His words.

 

[redeemedbyJesus]

I have a question…

What saves the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or the bread and wine we partake in communion?

 

[po18guy]

I have a question…

What saves the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or the bread and wine we partake in communion?

I’m not quite understanding you here…

 

[redeemedbyJesus]

What saves our souls? The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or the bread and wine we use for communion?

 

[ufamtobie]

Wy do you feel it cecessary to twist is words?
Us ut glorifying God?

I am sorry but I don’t understand you.

Ufamtobie

 

[po18guy]

What saves our souls? The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or the bread and wine we use for communion?

They are one and the same. Always have been and always will be - until the end of the age. Need further explanation? Glad to, if needed.

 

[po18guy]

You must not assume that Protestants think that the Catholic Church determined each line of scripture. It completely depends on which stream of scriptures one’s Bible has. Many Protestant Bibles follow the same stream as the Orthodox.

Excuse please, but the early Catholic Church 100% compiled the OT and its early members wrote the entire NT. There was no Orthodox church until 700 years after scripture was canonized. The early Church was known as “catholic”, or universal, at least 250 years before scripture was canonized. It had the God-given authority to canonize scripture, and that is exactly what it did.

I cannot agree with or abide by any and all subsequent changes to scripture made by those in schism or those putting forth heresy. Like the Crusades and the Inquisition, that’s history, whether we like it or not.