Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

I am glad you feel born again by this sacrament. I would think though this is a re-filling but not being born again, in the scriptural sense. This is the problem, one of them, that I have with RP, the distraction of the “miracle” and the actually biding the minutes till gestation of "Divinity. Sorry, but it sounds base to me, like a kind of super food. Sorry, but my flesh availeth me little, and I can’t understand why he would want to be part of my flesh.I always thought we are His tabernacle, but in the inner man, in our spirits. It is like water being in a jar. The water does not mix in with the hardened clay, yet the water sanctifies, gives meaning and use, to the jar.

(5)(a) Where in the world does the CC Ever state that Eucharist IS needed for salvation, please. (Never heard that in my life.)

Sorry, but it does.One must believe In RP AND participate at least once a year .Also read thread #287, where it is properly stated that according to CC, you need RP for eternal life, per Jesus’s words.

 

[david_ruiz]

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

I believe the term sacrifice was used early yet improperly, or that it was taken improperly, as in OT sacrifice, that Jesus was being sacrificed again.Hence many early fathers tried to make it clear that it was NOT a sacrifice in that sense, but they were giving thanksgiving for the one time sacrifice of Calvary .So i believe “prayer” ,communication with God,is proper synonym, for indeed the sacrifice has already been done/offered 2000 years ago.

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.

No ,not in the CC terminology .He is a presbyter (which is where you get your ,CC, term priest-which find inadequate, for it does not differentiate between two different Greek words used for “priest”, so it looks like “priest” is the same in OT as in NT, which they are not, except when applied to the universal priesthood. Otherwise, presbyter is implied with the role of overseeing the flock, as well as bishop, deacon, elder.

What catechism?

Sorry, it was a Vatican 1or 2 statement.Thank-you

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

All I can say, off the top of my head, is that originally it appears that bishop and presbyter are synonomous in Pauline terminology.It also seems that bishop later developed as one who oversees a larger “area” which may include presbyters within that “area”. Aside from that, I would have to double check what the definition or understanding is verbatim.

 

[PRmerger]

Hence many early fathers tried to make it clear that it was NOT a sacrifice in that sense, but they were giving thanksgiving for the one time sacrifice of Calvary

Could you please provide a quote (and source) from at least 2 ECFs who “made it clear” that the sacrifice of the Mass is merely thanksgiving and not a participation in the Eternal and One True Sacrifice at Calvary?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, it was a Vatican 1or 2 statement.Thank-you

Could you please provide a prayer that your presbyter says when he offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving at your altar during your service? Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

It is a fact. Seriously, are you just refusing to interact with this Seder thing? I’m giving you truthful statements about the Seder. They are easily verifiable, and if you take the time to find out anything about the topic, you’ll quickly see that they’re undeniable. These things aren’t up for debate. There is no opposing viewpoint, although I guess there are still difficult people.

No Cooter, the connection you are trying to make is not undeniable. They are non-existent.

Please keep this in mind. I am not disputing that the Seder meal itself is symbolic of their passing from slavery. Much more than that it is as you said “anamnesis”.

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.

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 asked you very specific questions. Just answer them directly. If it requires a long explanation before you can establish the connections then do it - make a long post establishing those connections.

This time, I wasn’t making the “it’s impossible” argument. This time, I was making the “poor analogy” argument. More specifically, the random comments about God saying “let there be light” as if it were “symbolic” light…these kinds of “random symbolism” parallels are not relevant or sufficiently related because they don’t deal with something that’s already well-established as a symbol. They’re nonsensical comments about symbolism that (so far) have not pertained to any situation where a well-established religious symbol is the starting point, and the main reason people make these comments is because they believe any symbolic understanding of the Last Supper is nonsensical and they reinforce this belief by making nonsensical comments of their own.

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.

This is very basic Judaism. I know a little about it, but for some reason you refuse to know anything

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.

I’m not making any assumptions about the basic teachings of Judaism as they pertain to really important Jewish rites. I don’t make this stuff up. I just tell you some of the important things about it (based on what they do and based on what happens), and you insist on being difficult

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.

If you want to look at a resource, though, here’s a link I picked just for you. dummies.com/how-to/content/the-symbolic-foods-at-a-passover-seder.html

Another place to look: judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/sederplatesymbols.htm

One more: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html#Seder

I have visited all these and they do not make your case for you. Now it may be that you are able to make the connection but you just have not done that.

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?

What is the particular symbolism of the Matzo? You gave a very lame comment regarding leaven and sinlessness which I have already rebutted.

What is there in the symbolism of these two things at the Seder meal that made Christ say This Is My Body and This Is My Blood.

 

[david_ruiz]

]Don’t believe Christ’s repeated Words, David?

I absolutely do, by His new life and grace.

Think he was only symbolizing Presence?

Absolutely ,by His grace.

Why did He use the word IS.

I suppose to show how the Passover symbols pointed to Him and His death, that He was/is the Lamb of God .It is interesting that He did not choose the symbolic passover lamb, but the unleavened bread . Perhaps to defray from a literal interpretation, and to show that He is also the Bread of Life.Yes ,OT ate symbols,as i believe we do today. There may be more discussion to "is’ , as there were several threads on it, don’t recall anything specific, unfortunately, from them.

 

[david_ruiz]

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

Why don’t you show his writings that definitely show figurative ? Anyways, I can understand how you see RP in them, as you see RP in Scripture. We differ on exact words in scripture , we will differ on Augustine also.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have only personally read up to 130 AD .I can only quote stuff that shows we give thanksgiving (not sacrifice), and that we eat bread and cup in remembrance.Tertullian, I think talked against RP, if I recall, from an earlier thread .

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I have only personally read up to 130 AD .I can only quote stuff that shows we give thanksgiving (not sacrifice), and that we eat bread and cup in remembrance.Tertullian, I think talked against RP, if I recall, from an earlier thread .

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8402280This 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.

What is unfruitful david is; that you forget the Catholic Christians who wrote the Didache believed in the Eucharist Real presence of Jesus body and blood as we Catholic do today. The Didache reveals a moral instruction and Catholic discipline practices.

What are your doing? applying your symbolic presence of Jesus in bread and wine to the Mass the Didache reveals is very unfruitful. What does Transubstantiation has to do with the Didache disciplines? From your false assumptions reveals to me; that you are reading (forcing) your 20th century theology into these ancient Catholic documents including the ECF’s who are all Catholic and practiced the Mass as Catholics do today unchanged in the Real presence of Jesus in His Eucharist.

david ruiz; Wow, this is new theology. From that one could say Jesus is only in heaven, and on earth in the “Eucharist”. We digress. I have already answered that Jesus incarnated,died, rose and ascended literally ,body,blood, soul and divinity.Don’t know. Who said that, that Jesus is figurative ? How do you sup with Him ? I see how you eat Him , but what does he eat of you ,literally. It is not “supping” if it isn’t two way , as biblically stated. Please tell me, what does He literally eat from you ?

**These are your own words david ruiz **" **Jesus is divine and He enters and sups with us **, with the inner man ,the regenerated spirit." This is all new to me, I know of no teaching biblical or other that “Jesus sups with us”.

Pleace allow me to propose a suggestion to you david? First of all you do not need to inform me how I practice my Catholic faith, or what My Catholic faith teaches, let me share my faith with you, so that you can share your faith with me. Having this understanding then, it will improve our communications from misunderstandings.

Secondly david; I find your position misleading when you fail at using quotes from bonified Catholic Saints from Antiquity (ECF’s) and Catholic documents to support your symbolic presence or figurative presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. By misinterpreting their writings including the Great Catholic “Bishop of Hippo” St.Augustine.

You see david, you are only reading letters on a page and trying to come away from practicing Catholic saints to support your “new” symbolic bread and wine to help you remember Jesus died on the cross. Why don’t you look into these great Saints Lives on how they practiced their Catholic Faith along with their many contemporaries who were also Popes and canonized Catholic Saints, who believed as St.Augustine in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist.

Do you think St.Augustine or any other Catholic Saint ECF would of ever reached Sainthood canonization in the Catholic church all these centuries? if they held to a new protestant view of a symbolic bread and wine to represent the passion, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and denied the Real presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity in His Eucharist? You see david your findings from a letter on a page is your own not the Catholic Saints who wrote them.

I have asked you questions about your position and you responded to me on how I practice my Catholicism and positions of my Catholic Church from your own opinion which has taken us off topic from one another or maybe I was not clear in my questions?

You claim to hold to a “spiritual = symbolic” understanding of bread and wine to only be symbols to help you remember what Jesus did for our salvation, is this correct? If it is not? please correct your position, because thus far you revealed to me that “Jesus sups with you”, Jesus body and blood are never present to you only “figuratively” in the bread and wine.

Question? Do you really drink (real) fermented wine and eat bread at your church services? If you do drink real wine at your church services and obey Jesus words in the bible “to eat this bread and drink this cup” (wine) to remember Jesus last supper? or crucifixion? Does your Church or pastor follow the bible and give this symblic bread and fermented wine to all children present as well as adults?

Can you reveal what your Church consumes in its communion services be it wine, grape juice, apple juice, water along with crackers, leaven bread or unleavened bread? Which do you partake of?

Thirdly david, and I repeat here? If you partake of Jesus spiritually? How is it that you can separate Jesus body and blood from His Spirit? I have a difficult time understanding your theology here, during your partaking of the bread and drink when you are giving thanks and at the same time partaking of Jesus spiritually? Can you give any body in Christianity that holds to your position how you believe? Does your source date back before protestantism began?

Thanks for your time and sharing here

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Aren’t you Changing Christ’s Present Tense Word MEANING ** IS**

in ‘Perhaps’, I suppose’?

                                                                                                                     But  God's  Word  says  the    Eucharist Is The Paschal  Lamb  which Is  Eaten:                Jn 1: 29  -  Jesus  called   "Lamb  of  God"

                                                                                                                          !  Cor 5 : 7  -  Jesus  called "paschal  lamb  who  has  been sacrificed"

                                                                                                       I  respect  your   profound  Philosiphications   and  opinions  against  Many of us   Knowledgeable  Of  Church  Teaching  Of  Christ/Church,  David,   but  We  have  Evidence  of The  Truths   In  the  Word  of  God   and The  Apostles:  1  Timothy  3 : 15  _Truth on Earth  is  In the  Apostles,  And  First  Church  Council:  Council of Jerusalem,  Later  the  "Magesrium",  Which  Lives,  Never  conflicts  in Dogma/Basics  With  The  Word   of  God.                                                          Real  Presence is  Lived,  Visibly  Proven in The  Obvious  Piety  EFFECT  Receiving The  Eucharist  HAS  on  virtually  everyone,  Every  Mass.    Visible   in  Thrice  shown daily  EWTN  Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

I have only personally read up to 130 AD .I can only quote stuff that shows we give thanksgiving (not sacrifice),

That would be good. Could you please provide the quote (and the source) where one of the ECFs wrote that we give thanksgiving and NOT SACRIFICE.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Huh?! You are confusing Matthew 16 with John 6.

It does not say by RP eating you will have this enlightenment. Both chapters credit the Father for this.

So now in giving credit to the Father you are discrediting Jesus? It was He who said it after all.

In the book of Acts, all the new regenerated souls who received similar revelation, and were filled with Divinity, had not even touched a consecrated element. Now if you want to say communion is a way of continued refilling, that is something else.There are ways to refill, to daily renew the spirit within us, per Holy Writ. None are directly attributable to RP communion.

We are not talking about the book of Acts. We are talking about Jesus’ own words. Seriously, just do what I recommended. Read John 6 meditatively.

.I believe I have. Indeed the words speak, and I have eaten them, by his grace. Unfortunately CC states that it’s Eucharist IS needed for salvation ,apart from all the “other” indwelling "of Christ.The word is “anathema” upon me.

Actually, the Catholic Church is only going by what her Founder said. If you read John 6, as I have been recommending you do, then you will see that it was Jesus who said it. He said if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not hve eternal life.

If you do not want to believe Jesus, well not one is twisting your arm. You are free to disbelieve what Him.

 

[benedictus2]

Quite no, Cory. That would be like saying that the human nature of Christ contains the divine nature, and that is not the case. So it is not the case of Sacramental Union. Your argument gets into substances/accidents, and we just don’t go there. We believe what Christ says, that “this [bread] is my body”, not “contains”, not “is mixed with”, not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.

But on the issue of transubstantiation, I agree with Luther when he says;
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.

Jon

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.

This I find interesting because I have been under the impression that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation as explained by Cappadocian.

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.

 

[benedictus2]

I have only personally read up to 130 AD .I can only quote stuff that shows we give thanksgiving (not sacrifice), and that we eat bread and cup in remembrance.Tertullian, I think talked against RP, if I recall, from an earlier thread .

You have said that over and over again and yet when pressed fail to give support. When are you going to get down to actually coming up with facts? I have asked you this several times and here you are again, claiming to have read something and yet unable to cite exactly where you got the information.

 

[benedictus2]

Why don’t you show his writings that definitely show figurative ? Anyways, I can understand how you see RP in them, as you see RP in Scripture. We differ on exact words in scripture , we will differ on Augustine also.

Then you would be wrong because I think Chesterton or Nicea have cited enumerable quotes from Augustine.

I even did the same and you had no rebuttal on the quote I cited. So if you persist in believing what you want to believe about St Augustines’s understanding of the Eucharist, it will be a willful denial of what you know to be the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

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…”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greetings benedictus, I am still trying to comprehend how historians record Martin Luther holding to “consubtantiation” and Lutherans today do not?

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;

Originally Posted by JonNC
Quite no, Cory. That would be like saying that the human nature of Christ contains the divine nature, and that is not the case. So it is not the case of Sacramental Union. Your argument gets into substances/accidents, and we just don’t go there. **We believe **what Christ says, that "this [bread] is my body", not “contains”, not "is mixed with", not “is consubstantial with”. The bread is His body.

Jon, I agree with Luther when he says;

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

“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.”

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.

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.

Do you know of any definition used to describe the wine remaining while the blood of Jesus is present outside of Trans. and Consubstantiation?

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?

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”.

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.

This I find interesting because I have been under the impression that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation as explained by Cappadocian.

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**.

 

[david_ruiz]

Then you would be wrong because I think Chesterton or Nicea have cited enumerable quotes from Augustine.

I even did the same and you had no rebuttal on the quote I cited. So if you persist in believing what you want to believe about St Augustines’s understanding of the Eucharist, it will be a willful denial of what you know to be the truth.

again ,you only have half his quotes,ala cafeteria style.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

again ,you only have half his quotes,ala cafeteria style.

The quotes I posted are sufficient for understanding his view of the Eucharist.

Here’s another quote from Augustine that you might enjoy:

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.