Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

]

I showed you that your claim that this is what the Didache says is wrong. If you are going to use support, then you better check that support first.

 

[david_ruiz]

How about you show me that those who framed the Apostles Creed did not believe in the Real Presence?

That would be interesting study .Don’t know who wrote it.Got any names ? Your question did not answer mine however.The apostles creed says nothing of RP, but everything what Christ wanted those departing unbelievers to believe in John 6.

Also do you believe in the Creed? Do you believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Do you believe in the communion of saints?

Yes.

Do you think one can pray to the saints to ask for their intercession?

No. Creed does not either.One C website said according to Trent catechism the communion is with baptized believers that are alive .It did say by interpolation you could include those baptized who have deceased .For sure it is not the 1800 Catholic authorized saints. Saints is any baptized believer in Christ, His Body, His Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

That would be interesting study .Don’t know who wrote it.Got any names ? Your question did not answer mine however.The apostles creed says nothing of RP, but everything what Christ wanted those departing unbelievers to believe in John 6.
Yes.No. Creed does not either.One C website said according to Trent catechism the communion is with baptized believers that are alive .It did say by interpolation you could include those baptized who have deceased For sure it is not the 1800 Catholic authorized saints. Saints is any baptized believer in Christ, His Body, His Church./QUOTE]Meant to say for sure it is not JUST the 1880 cannonized saints.

 

[jediliz]

The disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized JESUS in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD.

Jesus did NOT say “this is a symbol of my body” or “this represents my body”

The Early Christians believed in the TRUE PRESENCE. It probably helped that until they were martyred (Except for JOHN) the early Christians had the VERY WITNESSES that were there are the LAST SUPPER to explain the Eucharist to them.

 

[david_ruiz]

The disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized JESUS in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD.

Jesus did NOT say “this is a symbol of my body” or “this represents my body”

The Early Christians believed in the TRUE PRESENCE. It probably helped that until they were martyred (Except for JOHN) the early Christians had the VERY WITNESSES that were there are the LAST SUPPER to explain the Eucharist to them.

Hi Jediliz Agree that they recognized Him in the breaking of bread. When Jesus spoke figuratively He did not always says so . Right after drinking His “blood” of the new covenant Jesus referred to it/cup as the “fruit of the vine”, not my blood (at Last Supper). …Did the early christians believe in Catholic RP ? That is what we are discussing . Proof is slim except for interpretations of a few scriptures and several Father writings that could be taken both ways. We have nothing in writing that those at the Last Supper took it any other way but figurive/spiritual.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Jediliz Agree that they recognized Him in the breaking of bread. When Jesus spoke figuratively He did not always says so . Right after drinking His “blood” of the new covenant Jesus referred to it/cup as the “fruit of the vine”, not my blood (at Last Supper).

Here’s the text you are referring to:

Matthew 26: 26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,** for this is my blood of the covenant**, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

First. Jesus clearly says that the wine is His Blood and that this is His Blood that will be shed for the forgiveness of sins. So He is being very explicit there.

Second. Of course it is fruit of the vine. What else is wine if not fruit of the vine. Did you expect Jesus to say “I will not drink my blood again?” Is that what you really think He should have said to make the fact plain enough for you to understand? Can’t you see how lame and idiotic that kind of rebuttal is?

…Did the early christians believe in Catholic RP ? That is what we are discussing . Proof is slim except for interpretations of a few scriptures and several Father writings that could be taken both ways.

No way. No way could it be taken both ways. Every proof points to the fact that Christians believed in Catholic RP.

As I keep pointing out to you - take a look at the other Apostolic Church - the Orthodox. They believe in Catholic RP. They believe that bread and win BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ. If you want to discount Catholic belief then please explain who come that the only other Church that can be traced back to the Apostles believed in the Real Presence as well?

You and all those who maintain a symbolic belief, you came waaaaaayy after the apostles. As a matter of fact, thousands of years after the apostles.

The SYMBOLIC BELIEF of the Eucharist is a very NEW INVENTION.

We have nothing in writing that those at the Last Supper took it any other way but figurive/spiritual.

Here we go again. I have already proved you wrong on that one.

I said, that all you have to do to find out what those at the Last Supper taught is to find the belief of the apostles as passed on to their successors. As a matter of fact, you were the one who made that criteria.

And what do we find? The successors fo the Apostles believed in the Real Presence.

You kept using St Augustine, but St Augustine believed in the Real Presence. But St Augustine also explored the other theological implications of the Body of Christ. St Augustine never denied the Real Presence.

The only ones who denied the Real Presence were branded heretics by the Church.

As I said before, if you were able to do time travel and happened to land in an the early Christian Church, you would have been branded a heretic and would not have been allowed to join in the their Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

Words of institution are repeating the Lord’s words at the last supper and invocation by the Holy Ghost is just that .It is not what is said today .

Well then please tell me exactly what the words of institution and words of invocation that is being referred here and how is that different to one of the Eucharistic Prayers?

You see, you will not be able to answer that because you do not know precisely what the words of institution and invocation of the Holy Ghost that were mentioned above.

By analogy it is like this: it said" then we made the pledge of allegiance". But, what did this pledge of allegiance consist of.

Unless you can tell me the exact wording of the word of institution and invocation as mentioned above, you cannot say that it is different.

However, I do grant that they are not exactly the same for the same reason that the rites are not exactly the same but they all contain (save for that of Adai and Mari ) the words of institution and the invocation of he Holy Spirit.

And another thing, what do you think was the invocation of the Holy Spirit for when they prayed over the gifts? It is precisely to transform these gifts into the Body and Blood of our Lord. That transubtantiation takes place is the work of the Holy Spirit.

You are starting to grasp at straws because it is beginning to dawn on you that you just have no case. You are clinging to your beliefs in defiance of what your reason is telling you - that your belief is wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Nowhere, but “contexts” generally speak for themselves.

Well in this case, context says that Ignatius was not simply fighting the docetists. He was also making the point that if you do not believe that this bread and wine has been transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ then you are like the docetist.

You are asking for the context to define itself further. I admitted you can find RP there , but in a subtext. Just my opinion.

Not subset but a major point.

Again , it also depends which version you find more accurate .The long version says nothing of RP but stays true to short version context of all fleshly (incarnate) works of Christ.

Both point to RP.

You see, the problem with your analysis is that you come along, 2000 years removed from the scene and you try to impose your thinking on what happened then.

You have to read it in light of how those Christians believed. They believed in RP.

As I kept pointing out to you, this is one doctrine that was never questioned except but those who were branded as heretics.

 

[benedictus2]

Just remembering in fondness the old days of the Radical /Lyrikal debates on RP and Augustine.I recall one point of why didn’t Augustine rebuke /correct Ambrose for his belief in RP, if indeed Augustine thought it all figurative. It was said Ambrose was definitely an RP man .Have not read a stitch on Ambrose and RP. Apparently one could read him and come away with a different RP than CC RP, according to catholic monk Ratranmus. That is all.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12659c.htm

I refer you to this link on on Ratramnus.

Second. Ratramnus is in keeping with Catholic theology when He says that it is not the same “historical” body that we receive in the Eucharist. Of course it is not. What we receive in the Eucharis tis the glorified Body of Christ. The resurrected Body is not the same as the historical body. If it were so, then we would be eating a dead Christ.

While it is still the body that died on the cross, it is not quite exactly the same because it is now resurrected. The resurrected Body passes through walls and yet it has a physicality to it. So yes, Ratramnus is correct. And no, he was not saying that the presence is merely spiritual and much less merely symbolic.

 

[benedictus2]

Only in your paradigm where you view literal as higher and symbolic as trite comparatively

Not my paradigm. Christ’s paradigm. And literal is obviously higher.

But that is beside the point.

The point I am making is, if Christ meant it literally then obviously you don’t get the promise because the promise is for the literal, so symbolic just does not cut it.

Let me make this plainer.

Suppose someone said if you clean the bathroom, I will take you out to dinner. Now you thought, maybe he mean symbolically clean the bathroom. So you did some “symbolical” cleaning of the bathroom (whatever that may be). This person comes home and finds the bathroom still dirty becuase you only did a “symbolical” cleaning. Obviously you won’t get that dinner.

.Another paradigm would understand that both are quite personal, and spiritual, and intensely meaningful,

Perhaps to you but not to Christ. All this spiritual and meaningful stuff mean zilch if what Christ wanted you to do is a literal doing of what He commanded.

Now, he will understand if you really had no idea that He could possibly mean literal. But once you have been exposed to the possibility that He might actually mean it literally and by sheer willfullness you decided to insist on a symbolic reading, well…

but that there is a difference in discernment. Yours is not “less” just wrong… We both participate in his command to remember.

Yes, we do both remember, but with regards the rite and ritual of how this is to be done, He was very specific about that. And very clear.

Your logic fails cause when one is wrong they are wrong, and “miss out” and obey not in truth and spirit- you in RP if it is truly symbolic , and me in figurative , if it is truly literal .

Actually not. If it is really symbolic, then all it will be is that the bread we eat is just bread, we just understood wrongly so we still complied with the command to remember and believe in the eating and drinking of His flesh. Put it this way: we are thinking there is more but in actual fact that is all there is. So if that is all there is we still complied so get the promise.

But if it is truly literal, then you miss out because all you have been eating all these time is just crackers and grape juice while we have been eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ JUST AS HE COMMANDED. All these time your bread was bread and your wine just plain fruit of the vine. Since the command is to eat His Body and drink His Blood, then you’ve failed miserably to follow that command.

Analogy fails .It is like the Israelites the following year celebrating/remembering the first passover and insisting it miraculously becomes the original lamb/blood.

Analogy does not fail because the Israelites were never told that it will be the original lamb.

Besides, if you go down this line of thinking, you are therefore admitting that at the Last Supper, the apostles DID EAT LITERALLY the Body and Blood of Christ .

Well, how can that be when He was standing right there before them?

Your analogy does not carry over .Every instance must be analyzed on its own merit .If RP is true , it holds up .If figurative is true , it does not .If the blood was literal (it was in Exodus) then you better indeed smear real blood back in exodus. If Blood is figurative in John 6, you better participate figuratively (by faith eat His words and all that His flesh accomplished for us).

And since Christ was insistent in Johh 6 that it was literal, ( He told them over and over again to make sure they got exactly what He said), then you better eat His bread and drink His blood.

Firstly, He did NOT say by faith eat my words and all that His flesh accomplished for us.

What did He say? Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Several times to make sure that His listeners get that He means what He is saying.

Sad fact is, at your Church, you have no way of doing that. Try as your pastor may, it won’t happen.

 

[benedictus2]

Correct .Didache says, “The Fathers Holy Name tabernacles in us”. It has nothing to do with RP .This quote is found as part of our thanksgiving prayer. It begins by: We give thee thanks, Holy Father, for thy Holy Name, which thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts…,it goes on to thank for knowledge of Christ, then for food ,then for spiritual food . The first part is a lot like the Our Father -Hallowed be thy name .It is the Fathers name that is in our hearts .A name is representative at least .It is certainly not saying Jesus flesh has just been eaten .It is the Father, and that, His name .Later he mentions spiritual food .Nothing to do with flesh . Nothing like today’s Catholic communion prayer of transubstantiation /offering up to father etc.

You are rehashing old arguments which I have already rebutted.

As I have already pointed out, the Didache is not where we base the belief in the Real Presence. That comes from Scripture and Tradition.

Now to the Didache.

Notice how I said that this prayer came after Communion - after receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

So the prayer of thanksgiving goes: You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant

And what is this Spiritual food and drink? Do you think ordinary bread can be called spiritual food? Can ordinary wine be called spiritual drink? Notice, he has already mentioned ordinary food before, but now the writer speaks of spiritual food and this spiritual food is the one they just had because they have just finished communion.

The Eucharist is only spiritual food and drink precisely because it is Jesus Christ.

In a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, you cannot refer to the bread which remains bread, and the wine that remains wine as spiritual food. They are simply physical food.

Totally false interpretation of Didache. The Father’s holy name is not the blood and flesh of Christ.

Who said that it is?

What the Didache says is that after communion, then His Holy name tabernacles in us. How can it not when Christ is now in us.

False.You continue with circular reasoning , saying the Didache must be about RP, for their writers were.

Wrong. You continue with your failure to understand what I am getting at.

I never said that the Didache is about RP. I said that the those who wrote the Didache believed in RP because the early Christians did so.

As I have explained above, if the Eucharist is symbolic, then the bread and wine are not spiritual food and spiritual drink. But the writer of the Didache does not think so. He believes that the bread and wine are spiritual food and drink and that this was given through Christ,. Therefore the bread and wine must be truly Christ and not just symbolically Christ.

Pure speculation.There is no evidence writers were RP ers.

Since the early Chrisians were RPers then it stands to reason that they were RPers. And this is also evident in the text.

Notice how only the baptized is admitted to the Eucharist. If it was only symbolic why bar them? This is why a lot of evangelicals have open table fellowship. Any can come whether you have been baptized or not. Which is quite different to the early Christians.

The position has been presented that the only way of believing was figurative/spiritual in first century.

Yes, the position was presented but it was rejected because there was zilch support for it. You cannot support it from the Bible, nor from the early Christian writings. The overwhelming evidence is for RP. Just talk to the other Apostolic Church. They are as old as the us and we all date back to the Apostles - to Christ. And guess what - we both believe in RP.

That is why they did not have to spell it out even more.

They did not have to spell it out because everyone believed. They had no idea that 2000 years later there would ever be people who would claim to be Christians and yet not be part of the Apostolic Church and not believe in RP.

As I said before, if you turned up at their gathering you would not be admitted to their communion. You’d be branded a heretic.

If you were to ask them how they could possibly believe this way, they would probably reply :Bro, it’s a no brainer. Our Lord said so.

 

[benedictus2]

That would be interesting study .Don’t know who wrote it.Got any names ?

No but if you did a little research you will find out that they all belonged to the Catholic Church. Back then, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church.

Your denomination wasn’t there. The protetants weren’t there. They came one thousand and five hundred years later and your denomination probably another five hundred years after that.

The apostles creed is the creed that those being baptized were to profess. Those who were being baptized WHO ARE THE ONLY ONES ALLOWED TO PARTAKE IN THE EUCHARIST.

Your question did not answer mine however.The apostles creed says nothing of RP, but everything what Christ wanted those departing unbelievers to believe in John 6.

Well no. The Apostles Creed did not contain everything that that Christ was trying to get accross to the unbelievers. The Apostles creed does not mention anything about what Christ said in John 6 at all nor what Christ said at the Last Supper.

So now you are saying that Christ did and said unnecessary things.

]Yes.No. Creed does not either.One C website said according to Trent catechism the communion is with baptized believers that are alive .It did say by interpolation you could include those baptized who have deceased .For sure it is not the 1800 Catholic authorized saints. Saints is any baptized believer in Christ, His Body, His Church.

Well duh, the 1800 (assuming that your count is correct since I have not checked) canonized saints happen to be “baptized and have been deceased”.

 

[benedictus2]

QUOTE]Meant to say for sure it is not JUST the 1880 cannonized saints.

That makes more sense.

And no, we have never claimed that the canonized saints are the only saints.

But these are the ones we are certain are saints.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8523937]The question however remains: When the Lutheran speaks of Sacramental Union what do they mean by that? Do they mean that the bread is now his body (i.e. no bread remains)? Or is it a case of Christ being “under” and “in” the bread as Luther put it?

Hi Cory,
Sorry for the delay. No bread remains? Where does Christ, or St. Paul say no bread remains? What Christ says is that this [bread] is my body. And so it is. Nothing is said about whether or not the brad remains or doesn’t, other than that it is His body. When we say it is the true body and blood of Christ in and under bread and wine, we are saying that Chriost said the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, no more no less.

Because if it is, well, that statement (that Christ is in, under the bread) does not mean that it is His Body. In this instance the bread (the substance of the bread remains, but Christ co-exists in the bread and along with the bread. And this is how the other Lutheran (can’t remember his name) explained it.

Again, you are back to metaphysics, which to me as a Lutheran is irrelevent, though I recognize that to you it is not. Christ never says they co-exist, He says the bread is His body.

Your understanding is not Lutheran but rather Orthodox: it is His Body and you leave it at that.

When I read the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, what I believe appears Lutheran. If it is Orthodox, that’s ok too.

No but your quibble is not so much with the change but with the word “substance”. If we can use the word “substance” in defining the Trinity then why is it not applicable when explaining what happens at the Eucharist?

My quibble is with the use of the term substance in a metaphysical way. I can say I receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. I just don’t attach philosophy to it. I take Christ at His word. If, in fact, there is a change in substance and accidents remain, as Transubstantiation says, if that is what happens, then I receive His body and blood with thanksgiving. If, in a mystery known only to God, the bread is His body and the wine His blood, then I receive it with thanksgiving.

And if there is no change in the substance of the bread, then the bread remains bread. How can we then say it is no longer bread but Jesus Christ?

Christ doesn’t tell us the answer to this.

And as I said before, if people are happy to leave it at that then that is good. But some minds enquire. That is how we ended up with Berengarius. God gave us the intellectual faculty and at some point, this is bound to come up.

And for me, it isn’t a big issue. Perhaps that’s why you say my approach seems Orthodox.

For some, to say the Bible said so is enough. But people who think would yes, I know but why did the Bible say so? How do we reconcile this with what we know and what is said in the other parts of the Bible?

Ok.

It is wonderful that you understand it that way. But Luther says that Christ is "i"n and “under” the bread and not that the bread is Christ.

I think Luther would say my understanding is not unorthoodox for a Lutheran.

That is correct, transubstantiation does not entirely answer the how. But it does explain how something that appears to be bread can possibly be the Lord of heaven and earth.

This is what I’ve read.

The how is answered in the Eucharistic prayer itself : by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

And transubstantiation agrees with you - the bread is His body

Then I’m not just Ortodox and Lutheran, but Catholic too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8523951]I would say yes and no to this. It is indeed an attempt to understand but not all attempts to understand are equally valid. There are explanations that are false and those that are true.
If there are two opposing explanations, they can’t both be true.

Lutheranand Catholic theologians seem more and more to believe that are not in opposition, and I’m more of that mindset too.

I mean, just think about it. If He said the Church will be guided into truth, and since He is God, that promise must hold true. If not, then it would seem that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church from the time she accepted transubstantiation. And if the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church then, how sure are we that He did not do so earlier than that?

The Holy Spirit has not, and never will abandon His Church Militant. Guided into truth is not a finite singular event. When you and I join the Church Triumphant, we both will have been guided into all truth. The Holy Spirits efforts to guide us now are unceasing, yet our undetanding of that guidance is clouded by sin.

I have always maintained that difference is not this or that doctrine but infallibility. Because if this (i.e. infallibility) is true, then it follows that what the Church pronounces is true - with regards this, with regards Mary, with regards confession and all other moral teachings and all other matters of faith.

We will veer off the subject, I believe with this, but in short, the question arises which part of the Church, even leaving western non-Catholics out of the equation.

I am not too sure of this. The Lutheran belief IS consubstantiation (which is in line with Luther’s own belief). You are the first Lutheran I have met who believes that the Bread IS Christ.

It is what I have been taught.

I think one day you and I will be in Communion. One day, I think we will say to you: Welcome Home.

Pray for the day when our altars are as one, as Christ called for.

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Did you expect Jesus to say “I will not drink my blood again?” Why not ? He said it quite bluntly several times to unbelievers , so why not with the intimate disciples ?

Is that what you really think He should have said to make the fact plain enough for you to understand?

 

[david_ruiz]

Well then please tell me exactly what the words of institution and words of invocation that is being referred here and how is that different to one of the Eucharistic Prayers?

Well I took it to be , “On the night He was betrayed ,He took …bread…”.It certainly was not, "Father (or Holy Spirit) please turn the bread into His body. What do you think the words of “institution” are ?

And another thing, what do you think was the invocation of the Holy Spirit for when they prayed over the gifts? It is precisely to transform these gifts into the Body and Blood of our Lord. That transubtantiation takes place is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Pure conjecture .The Holy Spirit brings all things to Remembrance.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well in this case, context says that Ignatius was not simply fighting the docetists. He was also making the point that if you do not believe that this bread and wine has been transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ then you are like the docetist.

 

[david_ruiz]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12659c.htm

I refer you to this link on on Ratramnus.

Second. Ratramnus is in keeping with Catholic theology when He says that it is not the same “historical” body that we receive in the Eucharist. Of course it is not. What we receive in the Eucharis tis the glorified Body of Christ. The resurrected Body is not the same as the historical body. If it were so, then we would be eating a dead Christ.

While it is still the body that died on the cross, it is not quite exactly the same because it is now resurrected. The resurrected Body passes through walls and yet it has a physicality to it. So yes, Ratramnus is correct. And no, he was not saying that the presence is merely spiritual and much less merely symbolic.

So the resurrected Jesus was not historic also ?

 

[david_ruiz]

]

Suppose someone said if you clean the bathroom, I will take you out to dinner. Now you thought, maybe he mean symbolically clean the bathroom. So you did some “symbolical” cleaning of the bathroom (whatever that may be). This person comes home and finds the bathroom still dirty becuase you only did a “symbolical” cleaning. Obviously you won’t get that dinner.
That is a good example of a literal command. Can you give me one to show a symbolic command ?

Now, he will understand if you really had no idea that He could possibly mean literal. But once you have been exposed to the possibility that He might actually mean it literally and by sheer willfullness you decided to insist on a symbolic reading, well…

Yes and no.As clear as any parable.As clear as John 6.

]Actually not. If it is really symbolic, then all it will be is that the bread we eat is just bread, we just understood wrongly so we still complied with the command to remember and believe in the eating and drinking of His flesh. Put it this way: we are thinking there is more but in actual fact that is all there is. So if that is all there is we still complied so get the promise.

Yes, you complied with the command , but not in Spirit.You have made it a work , which is stench in His nostrils. Our fault would be either disobedience or of little faith, if command were literal.

]But if it is truly literal, then you miss out because all you have been eating all these time is just crackers and grape juice while we have been eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ JUST AS HE COMMANDED. All these time your bread was bread and your wine just plain fruit of the vine. Since the command is to eat His Body and drink His Blood, then you’ve failed miserably to follow that command.

Understand your point, but the evidence of effectualness is not there.

Analogy does not fail because the Israelites were never told that it will be the original lamb.

Then why did you bring up the literal"eating" in OT as if it proves something? Besides, that is the debate, are we being told symbolic, like the Jews of old or literal ?

Besides, if you go down this line of thinking, you are therefore admitting that at the Last Supper, the apostles DID EAT LITERALLY the Body and Blood of Christ

No,because Jesus was still intact in front of them .Besides you have the problem of the apostles partaking of His “historical” body , and not His “resurrected body” ,which earlier you said it was the latter we partake of.

And since Christ was insistent in Johh 6 that it was literal, ( He told them over and over again to make sure they got exactly what He said), then you better eat His bread and drink His blood.

He began discourse figuratively and ended it figuratively.

Firstly, He did NOT say by faith eat my words and all that His flesh accomplished for us.

Well, Peter pretty much said that and Jesus ended the “discourse”. Augustine was quite explicit in this .

What did He say? Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Several times to make sure that His listeners get that He means what He is saying.

And twice He spoke figuratively in discourse.