Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter cody.helscel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it was literal, Jesus had said everything He could say to stress that he meant literal. This is my body. I am the bread from heaven. My flesh is real food my blood is real drink. If you don’t eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you. He went from saying eat to chew to gnaw He couldn’t say more to stress the literal point. When they met in private, that’s when Jesus would have explained it He meant literal. He just said" are you gonna leave too?" If it was figurative there was a lot more He could say to correct the teaching. If it were figurative He would have said “wait you guys I don’t mean eat my flesh like that” But if it were literal He had nothing more He could say.
 
I’m pretty sure all those things HAVE been found in the stomach’s of Catholics after autopsy. I’m also pretty sure that the literal muscle tissue and blood of Jesus have not.
 
Speaking as God, he could mean that ALL food is the body of God, and ALL drink is the blood. In other words-- God is life, Jesus is life, and don’t forget that when you’re eating, you are consuming the life that God has made available for your sustenance as a living thing.

Or. . . we have the muscle tissue and actual blood of the Lord sloshing around in our stomachs. I like my version better.
 
Benjamin, He could have explained that to them. That He could add. That He had nothing more He could say is strong evidence there was nothing more to say. The substance of the bread changes everything we detect with our senses remains. Like your body at two years old isn’t the same body you have now. all the cells have changed out the cells making up organs have changed and other cells that didn’t exist back then. So the flesh of your body at two isn’t the same body at 14. Yet you are still you. Whatever you are that is the substance of you. But the cells and organs your hair all these things have changed and aren’t really you but are the accident. The Eucharist is like that. The bread that we see and touch are the accidents of bread. The substance that we can’t see changes into our Savior in heaven.
 
Sometimes when I begin to doubt the Eucharist, (because it is a “hard teaching”) I remind my self that the God who created the world and everyone in it, loved us so much,that he wanted us to be in eternity with him. THAT God became a man by way of a SPIRIT through a VIRGIN. Then he was crucified, died and buried. Then he rose from the DEAD and ascended into HEAVEN. If I can believe that, I can believe Jesus when he said This is my body, even if I can’t understand it.
 
benjamin1973 said:
But I know what “literal” means.
Click to expand...
Yes, but do you know what faith, means? I could probably pick apart everything the RCC does from a standpoint of human reason and logic, and I am Catholic. Actually, anyone not of the RCC faith is constantly trying to pick it apart, anyway; they don’t need me.

A recent thread asked what subsequent authority verified the truth of the Catholic claim to infallibility in its teaching. I’d guess about 90 posts ensued and finally one poster hit on the head. It can’t be proved, it is taken on faith. Believe and join the RCC, continue to doubt and ask for logical, empirically reasoned proofs that cannot be found, and stay where you are. Not trying to insult of offend, but that is the attitude of not only myself, but a great many of the RC’s on this thread
 
The Eucharistic presence of Christ only endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsists. Meaning once the appearance of bread and wine cease to exist Jesus is no longer present. So unless someone dies and has an autopsy within 15 minutes of passing the real presence of Jesus will not be found.
 
Salutations all,
Simple Alice here.
There is: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. … 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the WORD of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

THE WORD is JESUS! His voice commands it so. The Holy Spirit does it.

For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and … to be understood of Christ, the essential Word of God; for the Word of God was a known …

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)
If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it

Now if we consider that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every … much more powerful is God’s word, since it is more important than God’s name?

I wanted to establish the POWER OF GODS WORD! It has more power than the name of Jesus. The priest, during the Concentration, holds the wafer and the cup of wine to the lips. The breath of the priest, speaks the WORD: THIS IS MY BODY…,Jesus is the WORD. It is His body.
He speaks the WORDS: THIS IS MY BLOOD…
Again, the breath of God’s WORD over the wine His blood! The Holy Spirit is a wind. The priests breath is a wind. That wind carries the WORD over the elements changing them from natural bread and wine to supernatural Christ’s body and blood.
For one to believe, the Holy Spirit has to call him. Faith has to be brought through many Church teachings. This teaching is God’s.
I think I connected the dots.
Oh, FatherGod, in the last days, Your Spirit will be poured out over all flesh. I see unbelievers, not believe. They can be told the whole story and still not believe. Your Spirit must help us get Your message out. St. Michael, there is great demand of your services. Our family members & those we love need to have hearts and souls opened for Your message Jesus. Forgive me, of
my failings as an Evangelist. I do ask that my Words will be Your Words. My heart be Your heart for Your children and mine. Thank You ABBA! Deo Gratias
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
 
What if someone throws up?

Surely someone has been sick and thrown up the bread? Is it un-trans-substantiated at that point?
 
The bread substance that we can’t see? Erm. I’m confused about this. So when you swallow the Eucharist, it still looks like bread, has the chemical composition of bread, but is actually the body of Christ?
 
Last edited:
cody.helscel said:
One Protestant told me different people believe it is symbolic to partake in Christ’s flesh and blood. I understand Catholics teach that it’s literal because Christ (aka God) said, “this IS my flesh…”.

My Protestant friend then asked, “so Catholics pick and choose what Jesus taught literally”.

How can we know the flesh and blood is literal compared to perhaps other symbolic verses?
Click to expand...
Depends on which Protestants. High churches Protestants who can claim to have ordained priests believe they ara not symbolic. They believe in the Real Presence.

Protestants who do not have priests do not believe in Real Presence but only symbolic.

The condition for Real Presence is that the Eucharist must be confected by priests with apostolic succession. As Protestants left the Catholic Church along the centuries, they also lost the apostolic succession.

So go figure.

Even if they want to believe in the Real Presence or literal interpretation, they can’t, because they do not have priests with apostolic succession to do it.

This argument therefore has to take into consideration that only priests with apostolic succession can confect the Eucharist thus to interpret the verses literally.

That probably is the main reason for those Protestants to interpret the bread and wine as symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus, however, nearer said they were symbolic.

God bless.
 
HD0521 said:
Sometimes when I begin to doubt the Eucharist, (because it is a “hard teaching”) I remind my self that the God who created the world and everyone in it, loved us so much,that he wanted us to be in eternity with him. THAT God became a man by way of a SPIRIT through a VIRGIN. Then he was crucified, died and buried. Then he rose from the DEAD and ascended into HEAVEN. If I can believe that, I can believe Jesus when he said This is my body, even if I can’t understand it.
Click to expand...
Ask Jesus to prove the reality of the Eucharist to you. I didn’t have to. I already believed. But He showed me anyway. And He did it while I was receiving. I will never doubt that I truly receive His Body and Blood in Holy Communion.
 
benjamin1973 said:
when you swallow the Eucharist, it still looks like bread, has the chemical composition of bread, but is actually the body of Christ?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is almost the definition of transubstantiation. The substance changes, while the accidents stay the same, the acidents being what you see and what you smell in this case. This is a paradoxical statement, because usually substance is what persists when accidental qualities change.

If I shave my beard, I am still me. The beard is not needed for me to be me, an accidental quality to the substantial me. If I take off my glasses, I am still me. But if Clark Kent takes off his glasses, he becomes Superman, a substantial change related to an accident changing. (hmm, maybe not a great example lol)

As long as the accidents persist in the consecrated host, the substance of the Body of Christ persists. Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt has a wonderful scene of a young boy grappling with the issue. After fasting for 10 hours, he receives his first communion, and then goes outside and pukes. He hurries back to Church and confesses, and is told to clean it up. Then goes back again to ask how to clean it up. (“It has been 2 mnutes since my last confession…”) The bread no longer looks like bread to be eaten and shared, so it is no longer the Body of Christ. It has changed again.
 
Last edited:
Based upon my beliefs, Jesus literally transformed the bread and wine at Passover into Himself. So that we could actually consume Him during Mass.
 
Yeah, I can sense this is going to be a major hurdle for me. The bread, so far as I can see, has made the exact same chemical changes whether it’s taken in communion or in a Hare Krsna temple or at a Satanists’ barbecue. The substance of the bread has not been altered.

A “literal” change is one that is literal. So if something literally changes from bread to flesh, it must cease to be bread and must have all the properties of flesh. I don’t want to get in trouble here, and I respect that this is a Catholic forum, but it seems to my uneducated mind that all these long explanations are double talk-- with the purpose of taking something that is observably untrue and making it seem plausible.
 
Last edited:
The confusion about what “substance” means is a major problem, but should not be that big of a deal. If yu can figure out that “lift” means a shoe in the US and an elevator in Great Britain, you should be able to deal with substance meaning one thing in chemistry and another thing in philosophy.

More difficult is the paradoxical quality of a lot of religious language. People use “transubstantiation” as if it explains things, so scientific sounding. But it was meant to express a paradox from the beginning. Sunstance, which normally persists, changes, while accidents, which usually change, persist. This is not the ordinary way of things! It means accepting another “world” on top of the visible world, a world that can not be known by seeing or sensing, but only by reasoning or by faith.
 
cody.helscel said:
One Protestant told me different people believe it is symbolic to partake in Christ’s flesh and blood. I understand Catholics teach that it’s literal because Christ (aka God) said, “this IS my flesh…”.

My Protestant friend then asked, “so Catholics pick and choose what Jesus taught literally”.

How can we know the flesh and blood is literal compared to perhaps other symbolic verses?
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Does this look like a symbol?
 
I have thought quite a bit about the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar myself and have studied the relevant scriptures myself. Quite honestly, both sides of the argument can make a compelling case either way. Those who believe it is symbolic tend to hang their hat on the “do this in remembrance for me” clause. I agree though with the person below that said that Jesus states, this is my body, without further explanation, especially given what he is about to do, taking our place as the paschal lamb. There was nothing symbolic about that. So I take comfort in the promise that Jesus says: This IS my body which is given for you…This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood…" Also, OT covenants were normally sealed with a literal shedding of blood. We participate in that covenant by receiving the body and blood shed by Christ.
 
There are lots of long responses here about what the bread is or is not, but the reality is that we do not have the capacity to understand God in his infinite power. Exactly how the Eucharist changes is a mystery.

Currently, your faith is based on your ability to reason. But, how do you know you are right about what you decide to discount? Your faith needs to be in Him.

In order to have faith in Him you must set aside your reliance only on your ability to reason and ask God to help you understand His truth. Your reason can only get you so far.

We don’t know all the answers, but what we know is this: he said it was his body and blood. The first Christians took him literally. That belief continued for hundreds of years. It wasn’t until much much later that people began to question this dogma. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (those with apostolic succession and a direct line back to Christ believe in the real presence). The Bible does not contain every word ever uttered regarding the faith. You better believe that he has asked to clarify this teaching in private. The fact that early Christians took him literally is confirmation that they believed they understood it correctly.

Faith.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top