Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

:bible1:

Don’t believe Christ when He, and numerous early Church Fathers All Agreed in Real Presence? Think Christ was lying or spinning when He Said afterr He “blessed” Bread/Wine: “This Is My Body; This Is my Blood”; Unless ye Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood Ye Can NOT Have life within you"? Please Answer. Yes, or no, David Ruiz.

Howdy .No to the former, and no to lying, but yes to “spinning” (if by spinning you mean speaking as in parable/veiled motive ,or figuratively).

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8395115:

Transubstantiotion is a fancy new word, as is Bible. Think Jesus was spinning when He Said repeatedly ‘Ye can Not Have Life, unless you Eat my Flesh, Drink my Blood.’ How do you ge Symbolism out of Christ’s own Words, David?

Some would say, and have, how can you get literal out of that ? This was against Jewish Passover custom ,and Jewish Kosher laws, much less eating any human flesh, much less something pagans do .Pagans even believe in eating the heart, or other parts of "great warriors or humans " to get their essence in them .Some cultures even had divine wafers to religiously partake of , I am told .The figurative is biblically and historically as sound as you feel RP is.This thread and the previous one before it had oodles of such arguments.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Oh please .The John 6 and Peter /rock discourse, indeed talk of divinity getting in us .The Father got inside Peter and revealed to Him that Jesus is His son . John 6 says you can’t profess what Peter did unless you are drawn by the Father to that truth. It does not say by RP eating you will have this enlightenment.

• (1) The “CC” Always teaches that The Holy Spirit of God Converts/Inspires Any Conversion Like Peter’s, or to Catholic Clergy inspiration.

 

[PRmerger]

It is the sacrifice of thanksgiving for Christ(eucharist).

Yet, peculiarly, you do not know how this “sacrifice of thanksgiving” differs from a “prayer of thanksgiving”?

But regarding this minister in your church offering sacrifice at this altar, he is then a priest, no? Not in the sense of the universal priesthood of all believers, but in the sense of a man who offers sacrifice at an altar.

Yes, from Holy Writ, that the catechism says we received from God.

What catechism?

Well in all literalness he may choose to disclose much about himself or not so much .We may have different definitions of “bishop”. He was ordained bishop, as overseer of several congregations over a geographic area .I do not know if he has retired from that responsibility.

We may have different definitions of “bishop”? Okay.

So what’s your church’s definition of a bishop?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Howdy .No to the former, and no to lying, but yes to “spinning” (if by spinning you mean speaking as in parable/veiled motive ,or figuratively).

Don’t believe Christ’s repeated Words, David? Think he was only symbolizing Presence? Why did He use the word “IS”, Correctly translated Present Tense from Greek/Aramaic/first Century Roman Latin? ?

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8398129]Greetings Jon; I am perplexed by some Lutherans that have denied “consubstantiation”. Firstly “Transubstantiation” is not an argument made by Catholics. Transubstantiation is a term used to educate scientifically to the intellectual skeptics who deny the Real Presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity in His Eucharist, so as to begin faith.

Hi Gabe,
My impression has been that it is a reasonable human expression of the ultimate mystery.

Transubstantiation need not be for Luther or any other who does not have a problem “believing Jesus Words, This is my body, This is my blood”.

It certainly isn’t a reason I would use not to be in communion with Rome. There are others, well specifically one.

Jon; I know I may have outdated authors on my book shelves. But “All” of my historical authors record Martin Luther holding to a true presence, but that He attempted to explain “communion, by calling it “consubstantiation”, when bread and wine remained present alongside the new substances of Christ’s body and blood” This quote was taken from one of many historians by the name of John Vidmar, OP a professor and historical archivist pg 192 “The Catholic Church Through the Ages.”

If you have a link to a Lutheran source regarding Luther accepting the term consubstantiation, I would like to see it. I’m not questioning your experience, just that I have been taught something quite the opposite, that Luther did not accept Duns Scotus’ view of the sacrament, and that “consubstantiation” was a term used derisively by the Calvinist against us.

Question Jon, Now is there a new document Lutherans hold to long after Martin Luther died with his historical “consubstantiation theory?” Or did all historical authors record Martin Luther wrong, by having him holding to a “consubstantiation” explanation of the Real presence?

How is it that you reveal Martin Luther never holding to “consubstantiation” and many historical authors have him holding to it? Can you help me out here?

The rejection of Transubstantiation by the Lutheran reformers was in part due to the use of Aristotelian metaphysics/philosophy. In that consubstantiation is derived from the same philosophy, it would seem inconsistent to use that approach and yet reject Transubstantiation on those grounds. No?

Thanks; Gabe

I always enjoy our virtual meetings, Gabe. Peace

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Gabe,
In further response to your question;

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

In the following, the pastor points out the fact that it isn’t the old Lutherans who believed in consubstantiation, but some more modern Lutherans who mistakenly accepted the term.

saintlukes-cs.org/sermons/sermons-2008/Corpus_Christi_08.shtml

Hope these help.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cardinal Fulton Sheen did a wonderful speech on this last night on EWTN. Probly could be seen on You-Tube.

Peace.

 

[david_ruiz]

I guess you disagree with Augustine, for he spoke quite succinctly on the figurative eating of Jesus and His words. There is nothing in the text that said they believed like the non-believing departers .Who says you can’t focus on Messiahship instead of literal eating, or who says you can’t have figurative meaning, to move on to the main thing, whom Jesus is ? The point is CC places much emphasis on literal eating to back up RP ,yet the text does not say RP at all. It is not good scholarship to throw out the apostles figurative interpretation possibility. It is the only one that requires no further explanation for the moment.

 

[david_ruiz]

Specifically to which verse are you referring ?

1 Peter 2:2, 3 -“desire ye the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:if so ye have tasted that the Lord is good.” 1 Cor.3:2 “I have fed you with milk,not with meat,for you are not able to bear it(meat)…” Hebrews 5:12- 14 - “Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are full age…” See, you can figuratively eat the word of God,His oracles .Did not Peter say in John 6 that the Lord had oracles, words for life,eternal life, right after Jesus spoke of "eating Him " ?

Sorry but no - not when you take in the original audience. There is only one figurative way of understanding it and that is the one I already explained

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabe,
In further response to your question;

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

In the following, the pastor points out the fact that it isn’t the old Lutherans who believed in consubstantiation, but some more modern Lutherans who mistakenly accepted the term.

saintlukes-cs.org/sermons/sermons-2008/Corpus_Christi_08.shtml

Hope these help.

Jon

That’s great Jon, I just checked one of your sites just briefly and will read them in their entirety later, they have much content to cover. Although from my brief inquiry, these documents are disproving “consubstantiation” scientific definition, but has the bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood, which is never a Catholic teaching. But I will look more into it.

Sorry I don’t have any sites to direct you, only books and authors, but I will check?

Thank you
Gabe;

 

[david_ruiz]

Please explain why you think Augustine lays a good argument for the use of figurative speech in John 6?

Also, how do you know that Augustine’s understanding is not in line with Transubstantiation?

because he talks about how Peter had the sweet savor of the Lord , in his mouth /tongue , with His confesion of faith in John 6. Hence leave your “teeth and bellies behind”. For further info Radical and Lyrikal had lenghty discusions on this on the “father” of this thread, “The Real Presence” . As far as transubstantiation, don’t think so, but Lyrika thought so. There can be different views on just what is real RP, trans. being one of them. All I can say ,withot out further reading,of the same “material” from the thread that you had before your eyes also, is that he definitely gave a vivid, explicit figurative view.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

because he talks about how Peter had the sweet savor of the Lord , in his mouth /tongue , with His confesion of faith in John 6. Hence leave your “teeth and bellies behind”. For further info Radical and Lyrikal had lenghty discusions on this on the “father” of this thread, “The Real Presence” . As far as transubstantiation, don’t think so, but Lyrika thought so. There can be different views on just what is real RP, trans. being one of them. All I can say ,withot out further reading,of the same “material” from the thread that you had before your eyes also, is that he definitely gave a vivid, explicit figurative view.

You are reaching. Augustine’s views are quite clear, and they are Catholic:

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

philvaz.com/apologetics/num30.htm

 

[david_ruiz]

Unbelievable, your using an ancient Catholic document in her possession to support your symbolic Jesus here?

This is carnally contrary to Vatican council, where it is stated these things are from God, given to His Body ,the Church . Why I even use your bible, unbelievable, right ? Not a good fruit. But it got you to avoid the real issue, that the Didache is not a friend to transubstantiation.

Your theology continues to grow on these threads; Now you have Jesus eating supper with you, without no bodily presence? Did you forget Jesus resurrected from the dead? I still cannot grasp how your belief’s are able to separate the divinity of Christ from His resurrected body?

 

[david_ruiz]

your new theology refuses to obey Jesus own words “This is my body”, to falesify Jesus own words to mean symbolically.

You have said a lot but not much . Nothing is new here. I do not say anything is new. I understand the CC claims to be IT and from the beginning .That is binding to you and no longer binding to me . I must be accurate and am subject to no special interest. CC RP is evident in writings from 2-3rd century on , culminating in Trans. decree in 13th C. and Concil of Trent 16th C. Trans was rebutted quite nicely 150 years after it came out by Fr. Wycliffe. I say nothing new. Let’s be factual.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You have said a lot but not much . Nothing is new here. I do not say anything is new. I understand the CC claims to be IT and from the beginning .That is binding to you and no longer binding to me . I must be accurate and am subject to no special interest. CC RP is evident in writings from 2-3rd century on , culminating in Trans. decree in 13th C. and Concil of Trent 16th C. Trans was rebutted quite nicely 150 years after it came out by Fr. Wycliffe. I say nothing new. Let’s be factual.

Can you provide any quotes from early Christians who denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Angela77]

Literal. I was a bit skeptical myself, but after reading John 6, I fervently believe that it is really Jesus’s flesh and blood. Perhaps not flesh and blood in a human sense, but flesh and blood like it is in Heaven. My Bible has a foot note in John 6 that says the Greek word that Jesus used for “eat” meant to eat in an animal sense, not to eat in a human sense. I feel like this further attests to the Real Presence.

 

[JonNC]

That’s great Jon, I just checked one of your sites just briefly and will read them in their entirety later, they have much content to cover. Although from my brief inquiry, these documents are disproving “consubstantiation” scientific definition, but has the bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood, which is never a Catholic teaching. But I will look more into it.

Sorry I don’t have any sites to direct you, only books and authors, but I will check?

Thank you
Gabe;

Hi Gabe,
In '78 there was a Catholic/Lutheran study done regarding our two expressions of the RP.
In looking at Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union, the theologians said this:

Eucharistic Presence

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Now certainly this document is not a doctrinal statement, nor a statement that completely converges our differences, but what it does do is open the door to a greater understanding of how, in many ways, our expressions are not contradictory. Based on this, reading Catholic statements, and on listening to good Catholics such as yourself, I’ve come to the conclusion that, at least for me, Transubstantiation is not a hinderance to unity. Not speaking for any other Lutheran, it seems we make a distinction that lacks a difference in this area. But then, that’s just me.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

David Ruiz:

This is carnally contrary to Vatican council, where it is stated these things are from God, given to His Body ,the Church . Why I even use your bible, unbelievable, right ? Not a good fruit. But it got you to avoid the real issue, that the Didache is not a friend to transubstantiation.

And what makes you believe the Didache is an enemy of transubstantiation? Tell me when the Didache was written in regards to trans?

BTW: I have noticed you have failed miserably to answer the question as to when the early Christians rejected a lietral Eucharist and taught and defended a symbolic eucharist? Stop making excuses and simply swallow crow and admit they never did!

As I have said: Protestanism was founded on self-centeredness,not Christ-centered.

 

[david_ruiz]

And here alone reveals our differences; You make yourself out to be your own popes, by referencing scripture in the “I” interpret, “I” use" scriptural content and words to mean what “I” believe them to mean.

OK, what has this to do with Paul’s verses. Magisteriums and who interprets scripture is another thread.

NO man has ever taught or spoken in such a manner,

Stop the smokescreen.

Only Jesus Christ is the only one who commands the eating of flesh and drinking of His blood that one has “Divine” eternal life, who is the “narrow gate”.

That is right .That is what the whole topic has been for 1200 past entries(1000 on The Real Presence), what constitutes “eating”.

No david you misinterpret the CC. The CC is speaking of any particle of the RP of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity from the Eucharist. This does not apply to your proposed “figurative” divine life. Sorry, no again; this CC teaching (any particle) never applies “for the both of us”.

OK. I thought I’d try it, that if one particle of the elements (flesh or blood) gets you His entire essence, that one part of His spirit gets you all. Your point stands, well the CC’s, that I only have half of Christ, and His flesh would avail me much.

In addition our Eucharist comes from the Greek Eucharistia which means thanksgiving.

Yes, I have only repeated your, the CC’s, term and origin 42 times.

In relation to “Thanksgiving”, Jesus is our “Thanksgiving” when we worship God in Spirit and Truth in His Eucharist.

That has always been the implication.It has nothing to do with gratitude for turkeys and corn and pilgrims and indians.

You have been arguing that “you” offer up “your own” thanksgiving to God.

In totality, I believe I have stated it has to be in the heart of the individual AND corporately as a body.

I am sorry david your own thanksgiving is not good enough to enter heaven. Jesus taught clearly “No one goes to the Father except through me”.

Understand ,thank-you .This is in accordance with the Council of Trent, that CC dogma on RP is binding or required part of the faith, if not, anathema.

So you see david, without Jesus body, blood soul and divinity RP, how does “your own thanksgiving” go before the presence of God? Your thanksgiving and praise from your self, sad to tell you, but can never make it before the throne room of God, no matter how joyful you sing your songs and how much you supply “your own symbolic thangsgiving” these can never reach the Father, without the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Eucharist.

Yes, this is definitely either /or. All sacrifices are received on the on the basis of the heart of faith ( “For without faith it is impossible to please God”), which usually leads to proper protocol. However, protocol can be legalistic. It is like saying Cain had the wrong protocol (not offering blood, which covers sin), but scripture does not say that .He was refused because of his lacking in his heart of faith, so says Holy Writ. I put it to you, that differences in just what is RP, are important, but subservient to the attitude of the heart, acting in faith.
Peace be with you.