Literal or symbolic? Partaking of the flesh and blood

[Reuben_J]

You are right to say that it is still bread. That’s good progress. We’ve been saying that. No change to the physical property of bread.

Yet, it is the Body of Jesus, of God. This is where your reasoning with chemistry stops because you can’t
apply it to God who can do anything He wants.

It is bread but if God says it is His body, who are we to say it isn’t. We cannot fathom the mystery and the power of God to do what He wants.

 

[benjamin1973]

I haven’t taken a leap of faith in my beliefs about Thor or Krsna, either, and neither have you. Unless God or another deity claims me as His own directly, I’m left appealing to my own instincts, feelings, and understanding of the world.

I understand and appreciate faith, but my definition of that word might be different than yours. To me, faith is an understanding that I’m part of a larger whole, that everything is interconnected, and that anything is possible.

However, faith in a particular religious tradition is exclusive, rather than inclusive. It is the belief that one deity is real, but also the belief that none of the other ones can possibly be real. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans-- many of them are as sure about their faiths as you are about yours. They will also tell me at some point I have to stop asking questions and just choose to believe.

I cannot take that step, because I cannot believe that God is encapsulated in a few hundred pages of human language, including the Bible. I cannot believe that God is exclusive-- that if you are lucky enough to grow up in a place where the Christian faith has taken hold, you have a fair chance at an eternal paradise, but if you are not, then you are likely to suffer eternally-- or that if you have had water sprinkled on your head as a baby, you are blessed, but if not, you are stuck with the original sin of Adam and Eve.

To me, the gravity placed on some of these rituals seems dangerous-- I’m worried it shows a willingness to believe in the mechanisms and superstitions of man, rather than on the all-pervasive truth of a living God, which surely must not require circumcision, eating cookies and calling it flesh, avoiding shellfish, working on certain days, and so on.

 

[Reuben_J]

However, faith in a particular religious tradition is exclusive, rather than inclusive. It is the belief that one deity is real, but also the belief that none of the other ones can possibly be real. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans-- many of them are as sure about their faiths as you are about yours. They will also tell me at some point I have to stop asking questions and just choose to believe.

Here is a definition of faith from the Bible -

Hebrew 11:1-40
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

_13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. _

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.

29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

We differ in the definition of faith but that’s ok.

Since I am bringing up the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I am going to ask you again, how is that not possible according to you that God’s body and blood be in the consecrated bread and wine (the Eucharistic element)?

 

[benjamin1973]

It depends what you mean by “possible.” Anything is possible which can be conceived as being possible and which hasn’t been absolutely disproven. It’s possible that the cup on my desk is a space alien in disguise. However, I do not have any compelling reason, based on what I can see, that this is the case.

As for the definition of faith-- I think I like that definition. I’m fine with it.

Why don’t we put it this way-- faith is the sense that since you are part of a bigger picture, then what you need as part of that whole will be provided for you. A gear cannot really know where it fits into the engine, but it can assume that it will be greased if that’s what the engine requires.

Am I stretching it too far?

 

[Reuben_J]

I am fine with your definition of faith. I’ve just given you the Biblical definition /reference of faith (of course in the Biblical / Christian context).

I am trying to explain Transubstantiation, principally that God can change the Eucharistic elements to His body and blood but still in the appearance of the Eucharistic elements.

You think this is playing with words but I am asking if such a phenomenon (Transubstantiation) can happen.

We thought so given all the explanation and the context - that what Jesus said was literal. There was no hidden meaning when he said this (bread and’wine) is my body, my blood.

 

[BoomerangToo]

I cannot take that step, because I cannot believe that God is encapsulated in a few hundred pages of human language, including the Bible. I cannot believe that God is exclusive-- that if you are lucky enough to grow up in a place where the Christian faith has taken hold, you have a fair chance at an eternal paradise, but if you are not, then you are likely to suffer eternally-- or that if you have had water sprinkled on your head as a baby, you are blessed, but if not, you are stuck with the original sin of Adam and Eve.

If you can’t believe any of those things, then what can you believe? What’s left?

To me, the gravity placed on some of these rituals seems dangerous-- I’m worried it shows a willingness to believe in the mechanisms and superstitions of man, rather than on the all-pervasive truth of a living God, which surely must not require circumcision, eating cookies and calling it flesh, avoiding shellfish, working on certain days, and so on.

So what is this “truth” then? How do you determine what the truth is, when you have made a willful decision to reject all the recorded history of man’s interaction with God? What’s left? Do you fabricate your own god in your own image? That’s called the “New Age” and it is a religion, too. A do-it-yourself religion for those who reject all religions that have come before them. You are your own god.

 

[AlNg]

If you don’t eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you.

Does that mean that Protestants and Jews have no life in them?

 

[Benadam]

They’re go

Does that mean that Protestants and Jews have no life in them?

That’s what He said. I think it’s an exclusive bond with Him. Eating is life sustaining. Gotta eat to live. Seriously, It’s a participation in His Death and Ressurection that’s coredemptive. He did say I am the life. Protestants and Jews don’t see the redemptive value of suffering like us Catholics

 

[petra22]

We speak of plants and animals as being living things, of having life. We have analysed plants and animals, reduce them to the cellular level and the cells to the molecular level and the molecules to the atomic and even subatomic levels. Nowhere along the way have we ever come across anything called life, yet we know that life is truly present in these things. Likewise, the body and blood of Jesus is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine.

Profound analysis in MHO!!! Thank YOU!

 

[petra22]

And also, do you think, “unless you become as little children” fits in here. That we need nourishment and if our parent gives us food we take it with joy and eat it to live, not questioning whether it is good for us or not??? :

 

[petra22]

I cannot take that step, because I cannot believe that God is encapsulated in a few hundred pages of human language, including the Bible.

Are you talking sola scripture here? Remember Catholics don’t believe that all Jesus did is contained in the bible!

 

[benjamin1973]

It wouldn’t matter if the entire computational power of humanity was cataloging God, it still would be vastly incapable of describing God’s greatness, right?

 

[gregoryphealy]

Understanding transubstantiation requires understanding some philosophical underpinnings of it so I’ll define a couple of things here and then dive into what Catholics believe transubstantiation is (in my view).

Essentials: Those characteristics of a thing which are necessary to defining it. Ex. Body, soul, intellect, and will are all essentials to being a human person. Removal of any of these essentials necessarily constitutes a different being (or at the least, a non-human).

Accidentals: Those characteristics of a thing which are not necessary to defining it. Ex. Skin color, number of fingers/toes, height, weight, etc…

Transubstantiation: A change (trans) in substance (substantiation) where “substance” is synonymous with “essence”.

Applying these definitions, when a Catholic acknowledges transubstantiation, they are not proclaiming that the accidentals of the bread and wine (taste, texture, molecular composition, mass) are changing, but rather that the substance (or essentials) of the bread and wine are changing. This necessarily transcends mere quantitative, measurable properties of the bread and wine just as the definition of a human person above does. So the accidentals will remain, but the essentials have been transformed to contain the essences of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

I’ll also add that transubstantiation is one of the mysteries of the Catholic faith, so we cannot necessarily completely understand it through our capacity to reason alone.

 

[Reuben_J]

It wouldn’t matter if the entire computational power of humanity was cataloging God, it still would be vastly incapable of describing God’s greatness, right?

The greatness of God in a Christian view is His love (for us). The Eucharist is a measure of that love - that He is willing to become man and be broken in love of us.

 

[PetraG]

Scripture can be interpreted either way…

Well, if you choose to believe you can unmoor your interpretation of Scriptures from the consistent teachings of the Church, sure it can. If you believe the parts in the Scriptures that say not to believe people who try to come along and change this teaching and that it is literally true, then you can’t. Look at 1 Cor. 11:23-27. The Apostle Paul was not teaching that the Eucharist was just a symbol. It is very clear that the Church Fathers from the very first interpreted the Eucharistic presence as we do.

As a non-Catholic, this one is very hard to swallow.

I’m pretty sure Catholics have died and had autopsies done, and that muscle and blood weren’t found in the stomach. So. . . what does “literal” mean, then?

If transubstantiation were literal, we’d have the DNA of Jesus. We could make Jesus clones simply by removing the “literal” flesh and blood of Jesus from a stomach and sequencing its DNA.

I know, this is gross and maybe disrespectful. I don’t intend to insult. But I know what “literal” means.

We do not consume pieces of the Lord, so why would anyone expect to find pieces?

By literally, we mean in a presence par excellence, not even just a strictly physical presence, but Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is an unsurpassable Presence, not a symbol, a symbol being the figure of a presence held in the imagination only.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Check out “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz.

 

[fhansen]

Well, if you choose to believe you can unmoor your interpretation of Scriptures from the consistent teachings of the Church, sure it can. If you believe the parts in the Scriptures that say not to believe people who try to come along and change this teaching and that it is literally true, then you can’t. Look at 1 Cor. 11:23-27. The Apostle Paul was not teaching that the Eucharist was just a symbol. It is very clear that the Church Fathers from the very first interpreted the Eucharistic presence as we do.

I’ll repeat, “Scripture can be interpreted either way”. Which is one very good reason why the Church of God does not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Early Fathers are another matter, which supports the RCC and EO position even better of course.

 

[tnystrom1]

the

. Some left because believing in the real precense is hard. If it was only a symbol, why didn’t Jesus just tell those who left because they misunderstood stood his teaching. Or explain to his disciples his true teaching? The reason is he meant what he said, the Eucharist is his body and blood, like the manna was.

 

[Vico]

…
Some left because believing in the real precense is hard. If it was only a symbol, why didn’t Jesus just tell those who left because they misunderstood stood his teaching. Or explain to his disciples his true teaching? The reason is he meant what he said, the Eucharist is his body and blood, like the manna was.

Yes, that is exactly it.

 

[benjamin1973]

Your words confound me. And in my experience, confounding language is not usually employed in order to clarify a simple truth.

As for symbolism-- I would say that if there’s a very real miracle, the description of it could be symbolic. I know what flesh is. It cannot be other than it is, because it is that by definition. Flesh is a collection of cells, with human DNA, in certain structures. It has a particular chemical composition and physical layout. Any material which does no have all those characteristics is not flesh, by definition.

“Bread” is defined by observable properties-- composition, form, chemical structures, etc. Either something matches the characteristics of bread, or it does not.

Bread, after consumption, as Eucharist or otherwise, quite obviously keeps all the characteristics of bread, and not of flesh. Therefore, if you want to call it a “literal” transformation, you are abusing the definition of that word.