Literal or Symbolic?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_GreyPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I think Luther believes in consubstantiation as well. The last bit about there being only blood is a second option. He would rather believe it is only blood than take the other extreme position that it is only wine. But clearly by saying as “God wills it”, then he believes that Jesus’s blood is in and with the wine,

****If a Lutheran believes that it IS indeed Body and Blood, then whether they like it or not they believe in transubstantiation. It is the same with the Orthodox who claim they do not believe in transubstantiation when in fact it is just a case of refusing to define the how of it.

So I say to Jon, I will be saving a space in the pew for you :). It’s okay, you may take your time.😃
Let’s quiite Confusing things with the Modern Word ‘Transubstantiotion’. Orthodox Believe Powerfully in Real Presence. That is THE point. So do many Lutherans, some Anglican Churches, without genuine Basis. At least they have the correct Attitude!.
 
You have my Respects, David Ruiz, for tenasciously Trying your ideas with Many of Our Proofs. Tried Eucharistic Adoration, David? TRY IT, VERY RESPECTFULLY SILENTLY. A Post Here lomg ago Answered How one converts an Atheist to Believer in God: Take him to Eucharistic Adoration !
 
Again, you dodge the quotes that may be deemed figurative, but you are right, your quotes are only sufficient for CC RP. “Therefore, since we are to weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought…it it easy for everyone to read…and accessible to all men.” Augustine Confessions Ch. 11:8
Of course this is true. Scripture(the new Testament) was given to us by the Church, as Augustine readily acknowledges.

What’s your point?
 
CHESTERTONRULES;8404434:
Quickly ,I believe you left out the other parts of Ignatius quotes ,and Martyr’s that shed the full light on the matter . I know it is sufficient for CC RP ,but does not help any other view out.
You keep dodging the cold hard truths with evasions.

You are living in denial. At a certain point there is nothing we can offer you that you will accept.

I recommend you take it to the Lord in prayer and ask him to make the Truth clear to you.
 
Of course this is true. Scripture(the new Testament) was given to us by the Church, as Augustine readily acknowledges.

What’s your point?
No. Vatican 2, I beleieve, tries to snuff wedge building pride and say that God gave us scripture (to His Church).
 
Please keep this in mind. I am not disputing that the Seder meal itself is symbolic of their passing from slavery.
That’s good to know. I was beginning to think you were taking it beyond “ignoring the context” to a place of willful ignorance.
However, where your reasoning falls very much short is when you tried to equate Jesus reference of His Body to the symbolism of the Matzo itself. How many times have you replied since I questioned that? Yet to date you have not been able to establish the kind of link you are hoping to make.
The Matzo symbolizes a lot of different things at different points throughout the meal, but its primary focus is on the redemption of God’s chosen people and the ways in which they were rescued from bondage. The takeaway from the Last Supper is that Jesus’ flesh is the means by which all people- Jew and Gentile- can be redeemed and rescued from bondage to sin and restored to a right relationship with God.

I’m not sure why you emphasized Matzo itself. I hope that answered the question, but I suspect it did not.
Then you did the same with the 3rd Cup. I asked you before, where in Judaic teaching has wine been equated with blood? Where in Judaic teaching, has the blood that was dashed on the door posts been equated with the wine that they drink at the Seder?
I think you’re coming at this with some ill-thought-out preconceptions of what I need in order to make the kinds of connections I’m making. Here’s the deal.

The wine is symbolic. I’m glad you can stop arguing with me about that. This symbolism is primarily linked to the Exodus from Egypt, as is the entire Seder. Its main focus is on the redemptions promised by God in Exodus 6:6-7. Take you out, deliver you, redeem you, acquire you as a nation. The obvious link is seen when you understand that Jesus is using this well-established symbolism in order to say something about His (literal) blood (the stuff that was shed on the Cross). It’s the means by which people are redeemed, delivered from bondage, acquired as children of God, and so forth.

Earlier on, you actually did ask a good question about the New Covenant (or Testament) in Jesus’ blood and how that could be linked to anything in the Seder. It took some time, but I did track something down for that. I think you were looking at the OC as if it exclusively applies to Mount Sinai and not to the Exodus from Egypt, but I knew there was an obvious covenantal connection to be made with the original night of Passover. I found it in Jeremiah 31:31-33, and this is referenced in Hebrews 10 as well.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

So if you’re still wondering what the New Covenant thing was about, there is no connection to Sinai. Instead, it’s a connection to the covenant that God made with the “fathers” of Jesus and His disciples on the day when He took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. This New Covenant that Jesus speaks of is the one that was prophesied in Jeremiah, specifically in relation to the covenant that God made with Israel on the day He led them out of Egypt.
The light analogy was given because we say that the Eucharist is indeed His Body and Blood ex vi verborum - by the power of His Words. It will remain just bread and wine were it not for His say so.
Nice explanation. Good job with the Latin.
But I DO know about it. And it is not saying what you claim it is saying. Otherwise, after so many posts you would have addressed my very specific questions by now.
Oh, you know about it, do you? Well, could you demonstrate some knowledge at your earliest possible convenience? As much as I appreciate the Socratic method, it would be nice if you could show me something that’s not exclusive to the art of ball-breaking. A little goes a long way, and sometimes I’m concerned that you don’t know when enough is enough.
Well based on the links you provided it is apparent that you did make some stuff up - in particular the symbolism of the bread and wine.
The links took you to some of the most basic material out there, and the goal was to demonstrate that a Passover Seder is a symbolic meal with lots of symbols. I feel like that goal was largely accomplished, because you acknowledged this obvious/undeniable/empirical fact for the first time in your most recent post that was directed at me.
So here’s my question again: How is the Matzo symbolic of Christ’s Body (when He said this is my body) and how is the wine symbolic of His Blood?
The Matzo and the Cup already symbolized some really important things. In that regard, they were like giant arrows pointing to the things they symbolize. What Jesus did was not an act of transforming arrows into vessels of grace- rather, he indicated that the things they pointed to are properly equated with Him.
What is the particular symbolism of the Matzo? You gave a very lame comment regarding leaven and sinlessness which I have already rebutted.
It wasn’t lame, and really, you call that a rebuttal? Tell you what, you say you know all about this. Since I’ve already answered this question in detail (which you have evidently ignored), why don’t you give it a shot. What is the particular symbolism of the Matzo and the Cup?
 
No. Vatican 2, I beleieve, tries to snuff wedge building pride and say that God gave us scripture (to His Church).
God did give us the new Testament through his Church, as Augustine would gladly testify.

Who do you think God worked through to produce the New Testament if not Catholics?

Who selected the books of the New Testament?
 
No David, it is you who only have ity bity bits of Augustine’s quotes which is not even cafeteria style. It is less than that.

I cited a long one and here it is again.

When Augustine was having trouble with the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ He heard a Voice say to him.

**Eat Me.
I am the bread of the srong.
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather, I will transform you and make you part of Me.
**
And this quote blends very well with John 6: 56…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

There is not to parse it…or take 100,000 words to refute what it says.
 
I don’t want you to agree with myself or Radical, but it is interesting how it takes a “Radical” to give Augustine’s figurative quotes that you won’t post. No wonder you think we are NOVEL, by simply discussing quotes most Catholics have not seen.
Radical’s has done NOTHING of the sort to prove a symbolic Eucharist. I beg your pardon? There is no reason to post Augustine’s works on the Eucharist because it has been done for centuries, thus Radical’s revisionism of Augustine’s works are exactly that… revisionism. If your NOVELTY are FACTS,then explain to me why Radical has failed as of today to present to me where another ECF attacks him for teaching a heretical teaching called the Real Presence? All Radical did was divert and come up with another tangent unrelated to the issue. So yes it is living proof you and Radical believe a NOVETLY no matter how much if you wish to deny it!

Quotes most Catholics have not seen? Are you truly serious?:rotfl:

I have news for you David, the Catholic Church has had Augustine’s works long before any MAN-MADE Protestant church appeared,so I have no idea what planet you are on currently liiving on? Time to pinch yourself David and realize you follow nothing but a man-made movement called Protestanism with its many flavors of theology and revised history.
 
=benedictus2;8405214]
Aaah, so therefore you and Cappadocian understand it differently. Because if you say it IS His Body, then it Is His Body. **Whether you go with accidents/substance is beside the point because all that does is explain what happens. ** So basically - as you explain it - it is more a case of an evasion of the how rather than what transubstantiation says; that it is no longer bread but Christ’s own body.
Evasion how, Cory? It is an understanding that it is a mystery how it happens. If you choose to explain it (Christ didn’t) as Trasubstantiation, I’ve already said that fine.
This I find interesting because I have been under the impression that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation as explained by Cappadocian.
I respectfully disagree with the description as consubstantiation, on the same grounds as Luther disagreed with Transubstantiation. It employs a an Aristotelian metaphysics in an attempt to explain that which isn’t explained, Christ simply said that, literally, “this is my body”.
So, I re-iterate what I said. If one says that it is indeed wine, only transubstantiation makes sense because we do not see, touch, taste, blood. We see, touch, taste wine. Christ in NOT** in, under, with**
  • the bread and wine. He IS the bread and wine and that is precisely what transubstantiation is saying.
No, Transubstantiation, as I understand it, says the bread and wine are transubstantiated into body and blood.
He IS the bread and wine and that is precisely what transubstantiation is saying
This seems a misstatement. I don’t think either of us believe He is bread and wine. Please clarify.

Jon
 
=Gabriel of 12;8406248]Greetings benedictus, I am still trying to comprehend how historians record Martin Luther holding to “consubtantiation” and Lutherans today do not?
Hi Gabe. If you read the articles I linked, you’ll see that it is the old Lutherans who did not express the RP as consubstantiation, and for the exact same reasons they did not agree with Transubstantiation. Are any of the historians you have read Lutheran?
Jon graciously gave us this quote from Martin Luther, and as I read it, it still reveals Martin Luther holding to some sort of “consubstantiation”, see the underlined below;
Here it is again:
Martin Luther
This bothers me very little, for I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood.
How does this sound like consubstantiation?
Let it (Christ’s blood) be with the wine”, reveals to me that Luther is saying the wine co-habits (remains) with the blood. Luther agrees with the pope that there is only blood, at the same time, **according to Luther, the blood is “with the wine as God wills.” **Yet, God’s Word reveals “This is my blood.”
No. He is saying "let it be with the wine as God wills, IOW, the disposition of the wine is God’s choice. It is a choice Christ does not elaborate on
If the scientific term “consubstantiation” does not fit today’s Lutherans belief in the True presence and today’s Lutherans reject transubstantiation. Your post calls Lutherans to the floor, either accept consubstantiation or transubstantiation. Anything other welcomes in a symbolic presence because a change in the substance never occurs outside these two definitions.
Why not just accept the mystery as a mystery. Why not accept Christ’s words as they say, “This is my body”? He takes the bread holds it, brakes, it and gives it to them, saying: “This is my body”. I can’t see how anyone gets “this represents my body” from that.
If Lutherans today are just holding to “Faith alone” here, then why does Trans. or Consub. need be rejected? Faith alone cannot feed the intellect nor defeat the intellect when it attacks these revealed mysteries of God. Transubstantiation answers the call.
Because they are both a human attempt to explain how it happens. Christ chooses not to provide those details.
Do you know of any definition used to describe the wine remaining while the blood of Jesus is present outside of Trans. and Consubstantiation?
Yes. “This is my body”. The mystery of the blessed sacrament.
I must confess, I have not finished reading Jon’s proposed sites yet,😃 and hoping you can short stream my reading here,😉 if you have come across any other definitions describing today’s Lutherans position on the True presence?
Or rather, the definition given by the reformers.
I like your post here, because you make it clear according to our Catholic faith “bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ” when trans. defines the substance of bread and wine have taken on change. As you Compared that Catholics do not believe that Jesus presence is never in the bread or under the bread nor with the bread, Jesus IS the bread and wine. This exchange definitely separates Catholicism from all others and proves that the Catholic position on the True presence never contradicts Jesus teachings and commandments to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”.
If you are saying His body and blood are bread and wine, this seems opposite of what Christ said. He said the bread and wine are His body and blood. I fear that yours and Cory’s statement that Jesus is bread and wine gives fodder to the symbolicists.

Jon
 
=Gabriel of 12;8406546]Well Jon, with the short time I spent on these sites only confused me more:shrug:
Sorry, Gabe. :o
Lutherans today reject the following definitions; consubstantiation and impanation, or also incorporation to describe what takes place at the consecration of the Eucharist. Lutherans also reject Transubstantiation which defines the bread and wine remain these to our senses( flesh) “which availeth nothing” but to our souls the substance of bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in his confected Eucharist, “when it is the Spirit that gives life” here.
Yes, it is a mystery.
What is confusing is that Martin Luther’s writings on the Eucharist are interpreted by later Lutherans who reject consubstantiation, impanation, incorporation which was held by earlier Lutherans and some Lutheran literature’s.
Sources. Certainly, the Calvinists accused us of it.
I can understand Martin Luthers Catholic faith in the Eucharist via sacramental. Your first site attempts to define the Lutherans position by rejecting consubstantiation being held by some Lutherans, by never really removing its position from consubstantiation, because the site still has the bread and wine still present with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
What does consubstantiation teach? Try this link:
lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2010/04/consubstantiation.html
This site does well to include the sacrament terminology which I was able to follow the rejection of consubstantiation with the site, but yet it confused me, because the site moved away from the sacramentality understanding by still having the bread and wine remaining present with the body and blood of Jesus.
This makes it confusing to me, is it a sacrament to Lutherans or not? Does the bread and wine “substance” ever change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ or not? The Lutherans view from this site never answers my question?
The short answer regarding “substance” is Christ doesn’t say. Of course it is a sacrament, and it is the body and blood of Christ, as He says.
The site only refutes “consubstantiation” which some Lutherans are being put on notice later who are holding to a consubstantiation understanding of the Eucharist.
I am very impressed that Lutherans today are seeking to remove themselves from “Consubstantiation”, Impanation and incorporation definitions of the Eucharist. If Lutherans today are leaving what happens to the bread and wine at the consecration suspended on faith without having to adopt any reformers definition of a symbolic or consubstantiation presence. Sacrament would be the definition Martin Luther held to, as always been held in the Catholic Church.
Again, I would contend that it isn’t a latter day change. Prehaps a correction from what some have thought more recently than the reformation era. As for a similar view reagarding sacrament, I would tend to agree.
Now that the founder Martin Luther is passed, by what authority does Lutherans have to add or change to its founders faith in the Eucharist later? See the confusion Iam having viewing and comparing historical Lutherans to Later Lutherans who are interpreting what the earlier Lutherans believed?
None. The confessions are clear, that the body and blood are not consubstantial with the bread and wine, as Duns Scotus contended.
Should not have this pinnacle Christian faith in the Eucharist been handed down from the founders of Lutheranism traditional practice and teaching unchanged to Lutherans today without ever questioning the Lutheran faith in the Eucharist, by later Lutherans?
Agreed. And the same can be said of Catholics who do not believe in the RP, much less Transub. Catechesis is a problem for both of us.
From the Lutheran descriptions from the first site you provided Jon, these are not very far from Transubstantiation because your site tries to define the bread and wine remaining with the True presence of Jesus body and blood, but remains reserved in not proclaiming in “faith” the substance of bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Sacramental language “for me” best fits your Lutheran position today which removes you from all the other protestant definitions. I don’t think you should be to adamant about rejecting “Trans.” because your sites definition is just a breath away, if you take Martin Luther’s understanding of the blessed sacrament in sacramental terms.
Yeah, I’m not.
Thank you Jon, now I know “the rest of the story”.
Peace be with you
And also with you, my friend.

Jon
 
Radical’s has done NOTHING of the sort to prove a symbolic Eucharist. I beg your pardon? There is no reason to post Augustine’s works on the Eucharist because it has been done for centuries, thus Radical’s revisionism of Augustine’s works are exactly that… revisionism.
I am not revising Augustine’s works…I am merely letting Augustine speak for himself…as in, if he said the eating was done figuratively then we should know that he believed that the eating of Christ’s flesh is achieved in a figurative manner…Crying “Revisionist!” seems to be all that you can do when faced with the obvious
If your NOVELTY are FACTS,then explain to me why Radical has failed as of today to present to me where another ECF attacks him for teaching a heretical teaching called the Real Presence?
Huh? You want me to show you where another ECF attacked Augustine for teaching something that Augustine didn’t teach? Well, at least that is no worse than your other demands which required me to imagine that there was a consensus (in Augustine’s day) wrt to the nature of Christ’s presence at the Eucharistic. From there it seemed that, if this imaginary consensus was assumed to teach a real bodily presence and if Augustine denied a RBP, then you wanted me to produce a quote from the imaginary guardians of the imaginary consensus condemning Augustine’s refusal to endorse a RBP…or was it that, if the imaginary consensus denied a real bodily presence and if Augustine denied a RBP, then you wanted me to produce a quote from Augustine (as guardian of the imaginary consensus) condemning the introduction of a RBP? Either way, I don’t pretend that there was anything close to a consensus.
All Radical did was divert and come up with another tangent unrelated to the issue.
trying to explain how there wasn’t always a consensus on important matters (so that one shouldn’t assume that there necessarily was a consensus) isn’t unrelated…though it might require someone to connect the dots. The example that I often used was the lack of a consensus on where to draw a line for the canon of scripture.
So yes it is living proof you and Radical believe a NOVETLY no matter how much if you wish to deny it!
I am pretty sure that David and I don’t believe in any novetlies…heck, I don’t even know what a novetly is.
Quotes most Catholics have not seen? Are you truly serious?:
both serious and right
 
I am not revising Augustine’s works…I am merely letting Augustine speak for himself…as in, if he said the eating was done figuratively then we should know that he believed that the eating of Christ’s flesh is achieved in a figurative manner…
Well then he would be quite Catholic in his view. For Catholics view the Eucharist as figurative.

Just not as only figurative.

It is symbolic.

Just not only symbolic.

It is sacramental.

Just not only sacramental.

It is literal.

Just not only literal.
 
QUOTE]Where in Judaic teaching, has the blood that was dashed on the door posts been equated with the wine that they drink at the Seder?
Where in Judaic teaching does the unleavened bread equate to the lamb ?
 
Well then he would be quite Catholic in his view. For Catholics view the Eucharist as figurative.

Just not as only figurative.

It is symbolic.

Just not only symbolic.

It is sacramental.

Just not only sacramental.

It is literal.

Just not only literal.
Thank-you, but where were you when anything figurative, I mean anything, was being ridiculed ? Has it not been “either /or” from your fellows, they were starting to sound like “protestants”, you know, black and white, instead of your rainbow of “both/and”.
 
Thank-you, but where were you when anything figurative, I mean anything, was being ridiculed ? Has it not been “either /or” from your fellows, they were starting to sound like “protestants”, you know, black and white, instead of your rainbow of “both/and”.
Sorry. I came to the party late. 😃

Could you give a post in which “anything figurative” as it pertains to the Eucharist was being “ridiculed” by a knowledgeable Catholic?
 
And this quote blends very well with John 6: 56…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
There is not to parse it…or take 100,000 words to refute what it says.
It also blends perfectly where Jesus says thru faith /belief in Him, He abides in us, and we in Him. Same two way abiding, but not sacramentally, but believe that He is the son of God ,thru regeneration. “If a man love me and keep my words, my Father will love him and we will make our abode with him” John 14:23. “I am the vine, and you are the branches (figuratively speaking please). Abide in me and I in you. If ye abide in me and my words (figurative please) in you, ye shall ask what you will.”, John 15. His words abide in us ( flesh is not mentioned.The best you could say is eating his flesh are part of His words.The worst you could say, that it is the only way, either/or, declaring anathema to any other way of love and obedience to His word ) .It is possible Augustine tied this to John 6. ( I do not mean His words are literally running thru our veins - though He holds all things together, even our atoms ). Eat His Words, as meat preferably (undigested by another-cow- ,as milk is).
 
And this quote blends very well with John 6: 56…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Eat Me.
I am the bread of the strong.
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather, I will transform you and make you part of Me.

There is not to parse it…or take 100,000 words to refute what it says.
Interesting Augustine uses bread and not flesh . Jesus did say he was The Bread , that would leave you hungerless, and thirstless, and immortal (you won’t die). Last I heard Augustine literally participated in this Bread , yet still got literally hungry and thirsty(continued to eat and drink) and died. Yes, Jesus said this bread is His flesh, which He gave for the life of the world.RP suggests flesh and bread are synonomous, yet bread is used here, as in earliest ECF’s. Anyways ,even this quote, on it’s own , could suite both views. It is not either /or here, that is, it is not a clear winner for RP. It is just as clear as John 6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top