Literal or Symbolic?...

[rbarcia]

Jesus Gave His literal Body on the cross. But the communion bread is not that literal body

 

[david_ruiz]

By their fruits you shall know them. Here is a “strange” insert for a book stating that early churches had two sections ,one for catechumens and the other for the baptized, eventually two separate churches were built, until infant baptism became widespread ,and singular churches became the norm… "Early Christian liturgy, which is still preserved in Eastern Orthodox Churches, was divided into two parts, one for catechumens and one for the baptized believers. After the sermon and prayer and before the Consecration, the order was given , “Catechumens out!” Only after the catechumens all left and the initiates were among themselves would the secret Creed be recited and the communion bread and wine be distributed “. Notre Dame de Paris” by Richard Winston

 

[david_ruiz]

Matzo means unleavened bread. Different kinds of symbolic meanings are attached to it at different parts of the meal. More toward the beginning of the meal (I’m talking about Dayenu territory here), it symbolizes the affliction and slavery of Egypt, connections can be made between striations on the bread and striations on the back of a slave, and the unleavened bread eaten by Hebrew slaves is called to mind. As with all such symbolism during this meal, the term “anamnesis” should be close to the front of your mind- it is a “remembrance,” but not just a recollection of a memory. These things are called to mind in such a way that every Jew participating in the Seder considers themselves as if they were (in succession) a Jew enslaved in Egypt, a Jew being called and led out of Egypt, and a various other points, a Jew engaging in other blessings of God, other sufferings, and other notable times of deliverance. They obviously don’t believe there’s dozens of “substance” changes that are happening throughout the meal, but it is a bit of an insult to call this “just” a symbolic memorial, or “merely” a pointless thing that doesn’t mean anything. Doing so displays an unacceptable level of ignorance with regard to what Jesus and His disciples were doing that night, as well as an ignorance for many centuries of Jewish tradition that led up to this point.

Moving on with the Matzo, its place in the Seder makes it the symbol of transition from the bitterness of slavery in Egypt to the sweetness of physical, political, and religious freedom after leaving Egypt. And finally, leaven has always been closely associated with sin within Judaism, so the lack of leaven is a very straightforward representation of a lack of sin on the part of Jesus and it symbolizes “poor man’s bread” at early points in the Seder as well as humility and humbleness later on.

On to the cup. Exactly which cup he chose is unclear, and we don’t even know if there were a total of 3, 4, or 5 cups used in this Seder. This one happened near the middle of a 4-century period of transition in which the number of cups in any given Seder was not well-standardized; that wasn’t accomplished until the earliest part of the fourth century. But there are some general things that can always be said about the cups, no matter when you’re looking at or how many of them you’re looking at.

The cup is primarily associated with Exodus 6, particularly the phrases “I will bring out,” “I will deliver,” “I will redeem,” and “I will take/release” (has to do with bringing them into the land). Variations aside, we’re looking at Exodus 6:6-7 in every possible scenario and we’re looking at a group of Jews with God’s deliverance and redemption held in more careful consideration than at any other night of the year.

This is what led into Jesus saying “This is my body…eat, this is my blood…drink, do this in remembrance (anamnesin) of me.” And Jesus’ disciples did know what anamnesis was all about- they did it every year, and it just so happens they were in the middle of doing a lot of it on that night. But what is this remembrance all about? That’s pretty easy, once you put it in context. He was making a tangible connection between Jewish Passover tradition and Christian tradition going forward. He was indicating that the things symbolized by the bread and the wine are fulfilled in Him- the bread symbolizes affliction and a progression toward freedom, and His body (about to be sacrificed on the Cross) is the fulfillment of a more permanent, more universal progression from suffering to freedom. The wine symbolizes tremendous acts of God in Jewish history where He takes His chosen people, delivers them, brings them out, redeems them, and takes them into their God-given inheritance. Jesus’ blood is what the type is pointing toward- by His blood we are redeemed, even the Gentiles, by His blood we are delivered from sin and taken out of bondage to it, the new covenant is in His blood. Jesus is taking a couple of the symbolic elements most central to the Seder and saying “These symbols point to me.” No, no, no, don’t look down at the symbolic food in front of you. Yes, it’s important, but it’s a type just like it’s always been. Look up. Look at the Savior- He just said something extremely important about who He is. He’s not identifying the symbolic elements as things that were substantially changed without accidental changes (all of which is foreign to that place and time). He’s not instituting vessels of “sacramental grace” that will pour grace into the vessel of your body. If you’re a Jewish disciple of Jesus at this place and time, these ideas don’t even exist- superimposing it on their understanding screams “anachronism.” But if you’re a disciple of Jesus participating in the Last Supper with Him, you do know quite a bit about anamnesis. You know all about remembrance. And you definitely know what Jesus just said about Himself- this is tantamount to saying “I am God,” or at least a claim to have key attributes of God along with the ability to carry out every kind of redemptive act that was talked about all through the Seder. This is the context that lets you understand what Jesus’ disciples understood.

Of course, you don’t go anywhere near this if you’re anti-Semitic. Judaism can’t be part of your contextual process if you hate Jews.

Thanks.Good info .Catholics do have some OT rationale -don’t remember it(Mal1), but something about a sacrifice to be forever offered and a re-presenting of himself ,they even used a Jewish term for it .Maybe they’ll bring it up.Thanks again

 

[david_ruiz]

It hasn’t been the practice of Lutherans of Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act, but it isn’t forbidden either.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus Gave His literal Body on the cross. But the communion bread is not that literal body

Oh I see! God is the Creator of EVERYTHING with no limits,but He DID NOT or COULD NOT give us His body,blood,soul and divinity in two simple elements? How carnal can one get at times?

 

[benedictus2]

We’re looking at a Passover Seder, which has a ton of food-oriented symbolism. This symbolism isn’t meaningless, rote, or any other disparaging term you might choose for it- this is one of the most important nights of the year for Jews (look around the table- Jesus and His disciples, all Jews).

Speaking more specifically to food-oriented symbolism, let’s take a look at the specific symbolic foods that Jesus chose, starting with the Matzo.

Matzo means unleavened bread. Different kinds of symbolic meanings are attached to it at different parts of the meal. More toward the beginning of the meal (I’m talking about Dayenu territory here), it symbolizes the affliction and slavery of Egypt, connections can be made between striations on the bread and striations on the back of a slave, and the unleavened bread eaten by Hebrew slaves is called to mind. As with all such symbolism during this meal, the term “anamnesis” should be close to the front of your mind- it is a “remembrance,” but not just a recollection of a memory. These things are called to mind in such a way that every Jew participating in the Seder considers themselves as if they were (in succession) a Jew enslaved in Egypt, a Jew being called and led out of Egypt, and a various other points, a Jew engaging in other blessings of God, other sufferings, and other notable times of deliverance. They obviously don’t believe there’s dozens of “substance” changes that are happening throughout the meal, but it is a bit of an insult to call this “just” a symbolic memorial, or “merely” a pointless thing that doesn’t mean anything. Doing so displays an unacceptable level of ignorance with regard to what Jesus and His disciples were doing that night, as well as an ignorance for many centuries of Jewish tradition that led up to this point.

Moving on with the Matzo, its place in the Seder makes it the symbol of transition from the bitterness of slavery in Egypt to the sweetness of physical, political, and religious freedom after leaving Egypt. And finally, leaven has always been closely associated with sin within Judaism, so the lack of leaven is a very straightforward representation of a lack of sin on the part of Jesus and it symbolizes “poor man’s bread” at early points in the Seder as well as humility and humbleness later on.

On to the cup. Exactly which cup he chose is unclear, and we don’t even know if there were a total of 3, 4, or 5 cups used in this Seder. This one happened near the middle of a 4-century period of transition in which the number of cups in any given Seder was not well-standardized; that wasn’t accomplished until the earliest part of the fourth century. But there are some general things that can always be said about the cups, no matter when you’re looking at or how many of them you’re looking at.

The cup is primarily associated with Exodus 6, particularly the phrases “I will bring out,” “I will deliver,” “I will redeem,” and “I will take/release” (has to do with bringing them into the land). Variations aside, we’re looking at Exodus 6:6-7 in every possible scenario and we’re looking at a group of Jews with God’s deliverance and redemption held in more careful consideration than at any other night of the year.

This is what led into Jesus saying “This is my body…eat, this is my blood…drink, do this in remembrance (anamnesin) of me.”

Sorry but your detailed explanation does not answer the question at all.

You’ve explained the Seder but you have not explained why from out of nowhere Jesus does this. Why is the Matzo all of a sudden be His body? Notice that the wording is not symbolic at all.

And Jesus’ disciples did know what anamnesis was all about- they did it every year, and it just so happens they were in the middle of doing a lot of it on that night.

The anamnesis yes, but not this new thing that Jesus is doing. There is absolutely no explanation in the synoptics as to why Jesus did what He did.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a non sequitur at best and flame bait at worst.

No it isn’t. Guano’s point is very valid. If Jeus said that the Bread is His body and you say that it isn’t then it easily follows that the body on the cross is also symbolic. It would be completely different if it was not Jesus who said it. Then you can cry “non sequitur”.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh I see! God is the Creator of EVERYTHING with no limits,but He DID NOT or COULD NOT give us His body,blood,soul and divinity in two simple elements? How carnal can one get at times?

Well you know… sometimes we may just no be understanding it all that well. Perhaps when God said let there be light, there was only symbolic light.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus Gave His literal Body on the cross. But the communion bread is not that literal body

What’s He on about then? Why say it at all? Were the Jews so lacking in symbolism He needed to give them another two?

 

[benedictus2]

I can see that you did edit this post to some extent, but you’re going to have to clean it up quite a bit and maybe rethink some of the things you’re responding to that are directed more specifically at the OP. For a good bit of it, I at least want to wait and see how he responds before branching it out any more.

While you’re looking at that, though, could you tell me this? If Jesus wanted His disciples to know that the bread and cup were conduits of sacramental grace, why didn’t He just tell them? The implied answer, of course, is that they weren’t conduits of sacramental grace. And the disciples couldn’t have possibly come up with that, whereas they could have easily come up with “symbolic memorial”…this is a fairly important distinction. But I’m still curious about what you’ll say.

One could also say: if God really wanted His disciples to know that God is a Trinity and that there is such a thing as hypostatic union, why didn’t He just say so?

Actually, while we’re at it, why didn’t He just write a book and be done with it? What’s all the business with the Church?

As the Church matured, her understanding of the mysteries grew that is why now we can say that they are avenues of grace. I mean if there is going to be any avenue of grace, surely it would be the Second Person of the Trinity. Isn’t it that all the graces we receive comes from Him? That Second Person of the Trinity is the Bread so therefore it follows that all graces flow from the Bread who is indeed the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[benedictus2]

And Jesus’ disciples did know what anamnesis was all about- they did it every year, and it just so happens they were in the middle of doing a lot of it on that night. But what is this remembrance all about? That’s pretty easy, once you put it in context. He was making a tangible connection between Jewish Passover tradition and Christian tradition going forward. He was indicating that the things symbolized by the bread and the wine are fulfilled in Him- the bread symbolizes affliction and a progression toward freedom, and His body (about to be sacrificed on the Cross) is the fulfillment of a more permanent, more universal progression from suffering to freedom. The wine symbolizes tremendous acts of God in Jewish history where He takes His chosen people, delivers them, brings them out, redeems them, and takes them into their God-given inheritance. Jesus’ blood is what the type is pointing toward- by His blood we are redeemed, even the Gentiles, by His blood we are delivered from sin and taken out of bondage to it, the new covenant is in His blood. Jesus is taking a couple of the symbolic elements most central to the Seder and saying “These symbols point to me.” No, no, no, don’t look down at the symbolic food in front of you.

That would almost be true except that the text does not support it. Jesus said of the bread “This is My Body which will be given up for you”. He said of the wine : This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant. In the OT, the covenant was always fulfilled with blood (refer back to Moses sprinkling the blood of the covenant on the people). The wine at the Seder is not referred to as a symbol of the the Old Covenant. Yet here you have Jesus saying this is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant,

Yes, it’s important, but it’s a type just like it’s always been. Look up. Look at the Savior- He just said something extremely important about who He is. He’s not identifying the symbolic elements as things that were substantially changed without accidental changes (all of which is foreign to that place and time). He’s not instituting vessels of “sacramental grace” that will pour grace into the vessel of your body. If you’re a Jewish disciple of Jesus at this place and time, these ideas don’t even exist- superimposing it on their understanding screams “anachronism.”

I hate to say this but that is a rather stupid analysis. You are essentially saying that because the word transubstantiation was not in use then, therefore there cannot have been a transubstantiation happenning then.

That would be tantamount to saying that since the doctrine of the Trinity was not declared then and because the Jews did not believe in the Trinity therefore God is not a Trinity.

The Church is not some static thing that never grows, never gets to understand deeper the mysteries of her salvation. This is what you call a development of doctrine. Throughout the centuries, we have seen the Church grapple with issues and through all that come to a deeper understanding.

Around the end of the first millenium, Berengarius already made the same argument you are making now. Even then the Church baulked because such an interpretation just does not do justice to the text.

t if you’re a disciple of Jesus participating in the Last Supper with Him, you do know quite a bit about anamnesis. You know all about remembrance. And you definitely know what Jesus just said about Himself- this is tantamount to saying “I am God,” or at least a claim to have key attributes of God along with the ability to carry out every kind of redemptive act that was talked about all through the Seder. This is the context that lets you understand what Jesus’ disciples understood.

Well,not quite true. The only anamnesis the disciples would have understood would have been the passage from Egypt. This thing that Jesus did was so out of left field. The only way to make sense of it is if you put this side by side with John 6. Notice how the John 6 discourse was done one passover prior. John 6, by itself, would also not make sense. What is all this business of “eat my flesh, drink my blood” when short of cutting Him up, He gives them no wherewithal to obey this command.

But put the synoptics and John 6 together and suddenly, everything makes sense. The command that was given one year before, now they can obey because now the means is given.

 

[guanophore]

To reply to the bolded part of your post, I would direct your attention to a husband and a wife. When they come together in the act (making love), they are not physically together forever; however, although they are not physically together forever, the 2 still become 1 even after the act is completed.

This can be applied to the Eucharistic idea where the individual receiving Christ becomes one with Christ physically for a time and thus the two (Christ and the individual) become one but when Christ ceases, the 2 are still 1 (the same way they are still 1 in marriage). Of course, this is not to be understood in a sexual way but in a spiritual way.

I hope that helps.

God bless.

This is a good analogy.

 

[JonNC]

Heb 9:24-“For Christ is NOT entered into the holy places made with hands ,which are the figures of the true,but into heaven itself…” Didache: “He tabernacles in our hearts”

If your point is that, based on His words, and that of St. Paul’s that the expressed reason for the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper was to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, then I agree with your point. But that’s not to say that showing reverence and, yes, adoration of our Lord and Savior is somehow improper.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Well you know… sometimes we may just no be understanding it all that well. Perhaps when God said let there be light, there was only symbolic light.

Yes of course,God only meant it to be symbolic. What we believe is light is not really light at all,but a mere symbol of light? :whacky:

 

[JonNC]

Yes of course,God only meant it to be symbolic. What we believe is light is not really light at all,but a mere symbol of light? :whacky:

Symbolically speaking, of course.

Jon

 

[cooterhein]

Sorry but your detailed explanation does not answer the question at all.
You’ve explained the Seder but you have not explained why from out of nowhere Jesus does this. Why is the Matzo all of a sudden be His body? Notice that the wording is not symbolic at all.

My apologies, I should have clarified this sooner. I’m not taking a strictly Zwinglian approach to this, although the conclusion is roughly the same. I’m doing this for different reasons. Allow me to explain.

The Zwinglian approach- and the usual Catholic response- centers around the word “is.” It all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is. You’re probably well aware of the mantra “This IS my body- can’t you see that? Just believe it!”

I’m not primarily focused on the word “is,” though. I’m actually more focused on the word “this.” What is it, exactly, that “is” Jesus’ body? Well, it’s bread, that’s obvious. But it’s not just bread for eating, it’s not ordinary bread that nourishes you and gives you calories and energy. It’s a specific type of bread that’s used in specific ways on just one night out of the year. The bread is a symbol, and when I say “the bread is a symbol,” please understand what I mean by that: I’m saying the matzo was a symbol from the very beginning of the Last Supper. It’s not a cracker that you snack on. It is already loaded with centuries of religious symbolism going into this particular passover.

So the appropriate starting point is not one in which Jesus equates His body with a piece of food, and His blood with something that you drink because you’re thirsty and it’s meal-time. (Time for some yum-yums! No, it’s actually not at all random like that). He’s equating His body and blood with symbols. These symbols carry a ton of meaning with them, and it goes so far beyond the fact that they are edible and can nourish you. These aren’t little insignificant symbols either- they’re absolutely central to the entire religious identity of Judaism. Matter of fact, their symbolic significance is so great that their edible quality is fairly insignificant by comparison.

These symbols mean something. They are attached (symbolically) to really important things having to do with God, His chosen people, and the ways in which He’s delivered and redeemed them throughout their history.

This is what Jesus equates with His body and blood. Not exactly the symbols themselves- they’re really important, just as they continue to be extremely important to Christians who continue to treat them as symbols. But they are types, and as such, they point to other things. It’s these other things that Jesus equates with Himself. The symbols are like arrows. When Jesus uses them in the way that He did, He basically took a couple of enormous arrows that were pointing at some really important things and indicated that they point at Him, too. You can’t just look at the arrow and ask “How can this thing be equated with Jesus?” You need to look at where the arrows are pointing to begin with. Those things are relevant, and I don’t think you’re taking them into consideration at all.

Once the original purpose of the arrows is taken into consideration, you can observe a few things that you may not have observed before. The yeastless matzo is an arrow that points toward things that are sinless, things that are humble, things that are related to freeing people from bondage. (Among other things). Then Jesus takes this giant arrow and points it at Himself. This is not the same as saying “Look at me, I am a giant arrow.” What He’s doing is equating Himself with some of the other things that the giant arrow is pointing at.

If it were just bread for eating and just wine for drinking, I’d probably have to get on board with you in some way- at least to the extent of affirming the RP. But because Jesus is dealing with symbols and not just food, I’m afraid I have to make their symbolic meanings my first priority. So if you can take one more look at the oft-repeated phrase, keeping in mind that “This” indicates something that’s absolutely dripping with symbolic meaning:

“THIS is my body. You see what “this” is? It’s an arrow. It points to something. That is what’s being equated with Jesus’ body.”

 

[cooterhein]

One could also say: if God really wanted His disciples to know that God is a Trinity and that there is such a thing as hypostatic union, why didn’t He just say so?

I agree. Kindly take a look at post 74 on page 5 of these responses where the OP makes this initial comment: “Nowhere is the Bible does Jesus say, “This is the symbol of my Body”…or “what is in the cup is the symbol of my Blood.” The word “symbol” appears nowhere in the text.” Well, I wasn’t making a direct quote, was I? I was saying something about the meaning of the text, and if I limited myself to words that are in the text, I wouldn’t be doing that anymore- I’d just be making direct quotes with no explanation, and someone would come along and (rightly) criticize me for quoting Scripture with no explanation of my reason for doing so. What GP does here is wrongly criticize me for doing what needs to be done and doing so in the way that it’s always done- whether you’re talking about the Last Supper or the nature of God or the nature of Christ or anything else. I respond to this in post 78 by saying it’s a worthless argument that is immediately discarded every time it’s brought up. Based on your actions in the post I’m currently replying to, I’d say you just helped me make that point. AntalKalnoky appears to think it’s a great argument, though, and that it has something to do with the numerical size of the CC. Maybe you can work with her on that. (I don’t actually know that she’s a her; I’m guessing. Apologies if that’s wrong).

As the Church matured, her understanding of the mysteries grew that is why now we can say that they are avenues of grace. I mean if there is going to be any avenue of grace, surely it would be the Second Person of the Trinity. Isn’t it that all the graces we receive comes from Him? That Second Person of the Trinity is the Bread so therefore it follows that all graces flow from the Bread who is indeed the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[david_ruiz]

If your point is that, based on His words, and that of St. Paul’s that the expressed reason for the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper was to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, then I agree with your point. But that’s not to say that showing reverence and, yes, adoration of our Lord and Savior is somehow improper.

Jon

Howdy.First not sure of what words you mean. But the reason for the Last Supper and it’s comemmorization I thought was literally to commemorate His sacrifice for us .Even as a Catholic I did not participate to have forgiveness of sins , because after all ,one needed to be clean to participate in the first place (thru Confession). I think I participated to receive Him ,in this special sacramental way .Lastly, perhaps it was to commemorate his sacrifice.Actually now that I think of it, is that right , should the commemoration not be supreme ? Did the idea of receiving Him, and the miracle of consecration actually detract from the actual transporting myself to the scene of the original sacrifice ? I am wondering if calling His age old symbolism “mere and only” is actually what the enemy of Calvary would like .What is more important , the receiving ? The consecration ? Or that Jesus came as man and hung on a tree for our sins (and that we even have the ability , and stillness , to “see” that) ? I am sorry ,but you just talked me into holding up the remembrance, as higher than all the eating symbolic or otherwise. I know you will say it isn’t either or ,and that you can do all three perfectly and equally fine (consecrating ,receiving and remembering) ,but I can not, and did not as a Catholic.I personally find the theology quite distracting. Just do it . Break bread , repeat the Words, and give thanks - hence, let us eucharist.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes of course,God only meant it to be symbolic. What we believe is light is not really light at all,but a mere symbol of light? :whacky:

Day one he made light .Day four he made the sun and moon. I call day one light his “creation shop light”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh I see! God is the Creator of EVERYTHING with no limits,but He DID NOT or COULD NOT give us His body,blood,soul and divinity in two simple elements? How carnal can one get at times?

As an ECF wrote (I think about Mary’s Immaculateness or lack of it)." Let us not suppose just because He can , that He did".