Literal or Symbolic?...

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8415507]I agree in a sacramental sense. He is emphatic - “this is my body”. There is no dispute between us on this. Luther’s comment about the wine is a response to Transubstantiation, and his statement that it wasn’t that big of a deal to him. It is his blood, and he is happy to leave the substance of the wine to God’s will.

Thank you Jon;

Then was there ever a time when Luther himself or Lutherans in general refuted Transubstantiation? If so? Was it due in part to the Popes authority to defend the RP? Or was it the definition of Trans. used to defend the RP?

What is revealed thus far to me between Catholics and Lutherans in regards to the RP is; That the Popes defended the RP against secular intellectuals with Trans. While Lutherans maintain to the Words of Christ “This is my body” the same as Catholics have always maintained and still do.

The difference here lies in the faith of the substance. So I ask you Jon?

Do Lutherans believe that a “CHANGE” takes place in the “substance” of bread and wine at the prayer of consecration from the Word of God?

Do Lutherans believe the “substance” of bread and wine remain only and always just bread and wine on the altar at the prayer of consecration from the Word of God?

Do Lutherans believe Jesus presence is made mysterious around the bread and wine on the altar, without them ever changing?

I won’t ask you these questions without giving a Catholics answer;

1. The Catholic Church has always taught that a “CHANGE” occurs in the Eucharist into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
2. Centuries later the Catholic Church has defended the RP in the Eucharist against intellectual scientific minds, (communistic atheist) that tried to refute the RP, when the Popes proclaimed that a change does indeed take place in the Eucharist, by “Transubstantiation.” Again the Popes only defended that a change takes place in the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist when “God dwells with the human race.”
3. To date, the Catholic church has made no changes to the Apostolic faith in the Eucharist since the resurrection. She has only defended the RP of the Eucharist from her apostolic faith and reason without ever exhausting the mystery of the Eucharist.

Peace be with you Jon

 

[cooterhein]

At 3 different churches. Isn’t that like having 3 girl friends or 3 wives at the same time

No, it’s not like having 3 girl friends or 3 wives. What you’re looking at is unity.

No, not unity like Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. What you’re looking for is a different Latin phrase- perhaps e pluribus unum.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, AND WE HAVE 30,000 VARIETIES, WITH MANY NEW AND IMPROVED ON THE HORIZON. Thanks for a good laugh on afternoon break.

What’s to improve on the gospel of Jesus Christ our King? Nothing needs changing about the good news that Jesus sent His Apostles out into the world to share, so that all may be saved.

 

[wmscott]

I have been lurking for a while on this thread and it never ceases to amaze me how fierce many non-Catholics are in attacking the Most Holy Eucharist. They relegate it to crackers and grape juice while excluding the RP because it is, to them, just symbolic. Never mind that Christ Himself took “Bread” and “Wine” and commanded us to participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, all the while citing that it is “His” Body and “His” blood. Never once in the entire NT does Jesus say take this bread and take this wine as a symbol of My Body and My Blood. He did not use parable or hyperbole when referring to His Body and Blood. He was matter of fact and straight forward about it. The word “symbol or symbolic” is never spoken. This is an invention of Protestantism.

What a shame that these non-Catholics are missing out on such a deeply profound spiritual experience. They always talk about a “personal relationship” with Jesus, how much more of a “personal relationship” can there be in accepting Him in the Most Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We really need to pray for these folks that the HS will someday open their eyes to the truth and lead then to Him and to the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;8414050]cont;’

“Transubstantiation” is for those who scientifically need an answer to begin a faith in Jesus Christ and this term helps removes any doubt from those seeking “Truth” from the flesh into the mysteries.

Those who oppose trans. stand in direct defeat against science which can disprove any belief in a Real Presence in the Eucharist other than Transubstantiation, is just a man made myth and superstitious.

Jon; Ok on the first part. On the second I’m not sure about this. There are those who will disrespect the sacrament by stealing it away for scientific testing to “prove” it is mere bread and wine.

Very good; The Catholic Church has defended that a change takes place in "Trans. Signs and miracles have followed this proclamation by the Church. In some cases when the Eucharist has miraculously changed into scientifically proven “flesh and blood” to doubting priests and communities.

God has already spoken to the world that doubts. The only sign that it will be given is the sign of Jona who was in the belly of the fish for three days.

Now as far as the resurrection is concerned; This Eucharistic heavenly bread is for the believers not the unbelievers to consume.

The main point to this is that the Catholic Church only professes in faith that Jesus body, blood, soul divinity is present in His Eucharist in an unbloodied sacrifice (resurrected). And that a change takes place in the substance of bread and wine.

She has not exhausted the mystery of the Eucharist nor can science. Science itself holds to Trans. in all things visible that a change takes place invisible. Science cannot refute transubstantiation but it can refute myth’s and superstitions that cannot hold to “Faith and reason”.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.

2 Because of it the ancients were well attested.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Now when science is able to work the tools of science from its soul so as to place a soul under a micro scope, it is then that science will be able to see the Real Presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

I will spare you a long biblical commentary that teaches this; So I will leave with one St.Paul reveals to the Corinthians describing the “Change” that has taken place picking up the theme from Jesus who used the seed must die and be buried in order to become the “Bread of Life”.

2Corinthians 5:15 He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

16 Consequently, **from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. **

17 So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8418031]Thank you Jon;

Then was there ever a time when Luther himself or Lutherans in general refuted Transubstantiation? If so? Was it due in part to the Popes authority to defend the RP? Or was it the definition of Trans. used to defend the RP?

Yes. Transub is refuted in the Confessions, though not addressed specifically in Augsburg or the Apology, but in later writings.
Not because of the pope. As Luther says, but drinking mere wine with the Swiss, etc.
It was the use of Aristotilean metaphysics/philosphy. And that’s why they didn’t use consubstantiation/ impanation either.

What is revealed thus far to me between Catholics and Lutherans in regards to the RP is; That the Popes defended the RP against secular intellectuals with Trans. While Lutherans maintain to the Words of Christ “This is my body” the same as Catholics have always maintained and still do.

I think that’s a fait assessment, Gabe.

The difference here lies in the faith of the substance. So I ask you Jon?

Do Lutherans believe that a “CHANGE” takes place in the “substance” of bread and wine at the prayer of consecration from the Word of God?

A change takes place, that is for sure, and while Melanchthon references Cyril and Vulgarius in the matter, and uses the phrase “substantially present”, even then there was a reticence to use substances the way Catholics do.

Do Lutherans believe the “substance” of bread and wine remain only and always just bread and wine on the altar at the prayer of consecration from the Word of God?

That’s not my understanding. It is bread. The bread is the true and substantial body of Christ.
From the Apology: we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

Do Lutherans believe Jesus presence is made mysterious around the bread and wine on the altar, without them ever changing?

I wouldn’t put it that way.

I won’t ask you these questions without giving a Catholics answer;

1. The Catholic Church has always taught that a “CHANGE” occurs in the Eucharist into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

We would not dispute this.

1. Centuries later the Catholic Church has defended the RP in the Eucharist against intellectual scientific minds, (communistic atheist) that tried to refute the RP, when the Popes proclaimed that a change does indeed take place in the Eucharist, by “Transubstantiation.” Again the Popes only defended that a change takes place in the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist when "God dwells with the human race."

This sounds curiously like Sacramental Union, as a parallel to the Hypostatic Union, and the Incarnation. Is that the intent, a reference to the Incarnation??

1. To date, the Catholic church has made no changes to the Apostolic faith in the Eucharist since the resurrection. She has only defended the RP of the Eucharist from her apostolic faith and reason without ever exhausting the mystery of the Eucharist.

I actually think this might be the framework where Lutheran and Catholic theologians see the possibility of convergence.

Peace be with you Jon

And also with you, Gabe.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Very good; The Catholic Church has defended that a change takes place in "Trans. Signs and miracles have followed this proclamation by the Church. In some cases when the Eucharist has miraculously changed into scientifically proven “flesh and blood” to doubting priests and communities.

God has already spoken to the world that doubts. The only sign that it will be given is the sign of Jona who was in the belly of the fish for three days.

Now as far as the resurrection is concerned; This Eucharistic heavenly bread is for the believers not the unbelievers to consume.

The main point to this is that the Catholic Church only professes in faith that Jesus body, blood, soul divinity is present in His Eucharist in an unbloodied sacrifice (resurrected). And that a change takes place in the substance of bread and wine.

She has not exhausted the mystery of the Eucharist nor can science. Science itself holds to Trans. in all things visible that a change takes place invisible. Science cannot refute transubstantiation but it can refute myth’s and superstitions that cannot hold to “Faith and reason”.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.

2 Because of it the ancients were well attested.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Now when science is able to work the tools of science from its soul so as to place a soul under a micro scope, it is then that science will be able to see the Real Presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

I will spare you a long biblical commentary that teaches this; So I will leave with one St.Paul reveals to the Corinthians describing the “Change” that has taken place picking up the theme from Jesus who used the seed must die and be buried in order to become the “Bread of Life”.

2Corinthians 5:15 He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

16 Consequently, **from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. **

17 So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

Peace be with you

A very interesting alanysis. Thanks, Gabe

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8415752]I attend at 3 different Churches presently. For the bread, one uses crackers, one “Catholic” wafers and the other uses regular bread with yeast. For the wine, two use grape juice and one uses wine (but offers grape juice for those concerned about alcohol).

I prefer bread broken in front of the congregation from a single loaf (leavened/unleavened does not matter), and red wine. Ideally, it would be at a full meal and I do not recognize the need to have anyone in particular officiate.

Thanks for sharing Radical;

Do you think your churches broke from apostolic Tradition, by using crackers and grape juice? You stated that “only bread, wine and grace” are on your churches altars?

Jesus “Passover” meal used real wine, unleavened bread and a roasted Lamb along with herbs during singing the “hallel” songs between the four cups of wine. Are you referencing this Passover meal to your “full meal” ideally, with no one to officiate the Last supper?

Just to inform you, Roman Catholic altars contain wafers which are unleavened wheat bread, wine, water and a real Lamb of God, with incense usually made from the herb Myrrh. Also with an apostolic successor “bishop” present, or when not present a priest has been given his apostolic blessing to confect and protect the Eucharist as Jesus commanded all the apostles to officiate His Lamb supper.

Radical; I don’t follow.

What I was referencing, if your altars maintain wine, bread, grace nothing else. And the wine and bread do nothing but only symbolize Jesus body and blood. Common sense reveals that all your community including children are consuming wine and just bread.

Is this allowable in your churches to give wine to minors? If you distribute grape juice and crackers?, then as you say sadly, your church’s have left the symbolism and your altars and are to include something other than wine, bread or replaced by grape juice and crackers?

IIRC Augustine’s congregation used wine mixed with water and a single loaf of actual bread (unleavened I believe)…I wouldn’t call the wafer that I have often seen in Catholic churches “bread” and IMHO Augustine would have been extremely vexed by something other than a single loaf.

That’s interesting, because Jesus used unleavened bread, the early Catholic church’s used both leavened and unleavened bread. The early Orthodox Catholic Church kept to leavened bread so as not to mirror the Jewish passover, but yet they maintained their long beards and long hair. Later the Latin Catholic Church’s began to unify in the celebration of unleavened bread. In the Catholic rites neither Apostolic Tradition error’s.

What mattered to Augustine and the whole of Christendom, was that only an ordained Catholic bishop or an appointed priest can confect or as you say “officiate” the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I don’t think Augustine would of been vexed, because Augustine was loyal to his pope, who is the apostolic successor to hand down the Authority to Augustine in order to celebrate Mass and “officiate” the Eucharist.

Believe me, had Augustine denied the True presence in the Eucharist, he would not of stayed very long as bishop of Hippo Africa.

When Augustine celebrated Mass as Catholics do today in the Real presence. Because "no one can go before heaven without Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity presence. First you have to be washed “baptised” and Trust in God’s Word. No one can enter the sanctuary of God without the True body and blood of Jesus, and a symbolic body and blood can never reach heaven.

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, **since through the blood of Jesus **we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary

20 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,

21 **and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”

22 let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience 12 and our bodies washed in pure water**

The Catholic Mas celebrates the Wedding feast of the Lamb from eternity in time (Revelations 19). Mass is not just a remembering what Jesus did at the Last Supper, Mass is a celebration of the Last Supper made present in the Wedding feast of the Lamb. Symbols of bread and wine to remember what Jesus did is all wonderful. By biblical teachings and Traditions, I don’t see how symbols of bread and wine welcomes the presence of God in our midst, when know one can go to the Father except through Jesus?

Thank you for sharing Radical

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We have "table’ at front -do broken up “matzo” or crackers type thing and grape juice. Tell me, I have heard that when we read “wine” in english it may refer to fermented AND unfermented. Some even say the wine suggetsed for drinking in NT is unfermented. What have you heard ?

According to Jewish literature the passover “Seder” meal has always been celebrated with fermented wine. According to Roman and Greek literature the fermentation of wine was controlled (weak to strong) so as for children to consume. It was common for all in the households to consume wine with meals.

They did not have freeze boxes in the first century, so no matter when the crushed grape sat, the fermentation of wine was prevalent. Without an Ice box to prevent fermentation, the only time unfermented wine existed is right after the grape was crushed.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is what I said , three Catholics have said that, to the best of my recollection. He is the third. How is that curious ?

I stand corrected.

So you see that there are indeed Catholics who understand that there are sacramental, figurative, literal, symbolic, sacrificial, anamnetic, sin-forgiving, thanksgiving aspects to the Eucharist.

 

[PJM]

=The GreyPilgrim;8339393]Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?

Here friend is the answer your seeking

Catholic Holy Communion IS!

***His Literal GLORIFIED Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity: In other words the COMPLETE Risen[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. ***

**John 6: 51-56 **
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven”; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
**For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ** He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. and Now Glorified Jesus!

Also see Mt. 26, Mk. 14, Lk.22, 1st. Cor 11

God Bless,
Pat

 

[david_ruiz]

What’s to improve on the gospel of Jesus Christ our King? Nothing needs changing about the good news that Jesus sent His Apostles out into the world to share, so that all may be saved.

What was I thinking , for the “once right always right” CC dogma makes any reformation moot.

 

[david_ruiz]

I stand corrected.

So you see that there are indeed Catholics who understand that there are sacramental, figurative, literal, symbolic, sacrificial, anamnetic, sin-forgiving, thanksgiving aspects to the Eucharist.

Yes, thanks.

 

[david_ruiz]

What mattered to Augustine and the whole of Christendom, was that only an ordained Catholic bishop or an appointed priest can confect or as you say “officiate” the Liturgy of the Eucharist

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Gabriel of 12;8418435:

. What is the earliest writing that denotes that ? I only saw one ECF that said there was a "president " of the meeting/assembly . Forgot who it was, sometime within a hundred years after Pentecost. It is hard to imagine that there was a priest /presbyter in every home meeting/“mass”, in the very beginning. I am not sure we had many churches until after the persecutions (300 's A.D.) in the Roman empire.

Read St. Ignatius.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have been lurking for a while on this thread and it never ceases to amaze me how fierce many non-Catholics are in attacking the Most Holy Eucharist. They relegate it to crackers and grape juice while excluding the RP because it is, to them, just symbolic. Never mind that Christ Himself took “Bread” and “Wine” and commanded us to participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, all the while citing that it is “His” Body and “His” blood. Never once in the entire NT does Jesus say take this bread and take this wine as a symbol of My Body and My Blood. He did not use parable or hyperbole when referring to His Body and Blood. He was matter of fact and straight forward about it. The word “symbol or symbolic” is never spoken. This is an invention of Protestantism.

What a shame that these non-Catholics are missing out on such a deeply profound spiritual experience. They always talk about a “personal relationship” with Jesus, how much more of a “personal relationship” can there be in accepting Him in the Most Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We really need to pray for these folks that the HS will someday open their eyes to the truth and lead then to Him and to the Most Holy Eucharist.

Howdy .The proof is in the pudding . Actually we have evidences, not proofs.You beautifully, as do others , speak of the Eucharist experience.You also make the symbolic communion seem trite in comparison, which is understandable from your point of view. It is just that I have seen almost no difference in the participants spiritual demeanor based on RP or symbolic communion. If indeed symbolic communion is so lacking , why is it that episcopals or lutherans or baptists seem to walk the walk as well, (or not so well ), as any RP participant ? The difference should be night and day shouldn’t it ? After all, non-RPers do not have eternal life, and in CC fashion, are anathema. Yet they seem to love Jesus as Lord and Savior equal to the non-anathemized. Again, these are not proofs, merely evidences, that unfortunately can be easily dismissed/rebutted. Back to square one, right ?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

What was I thinking , for the “once right always right” CC dogma makes any reformation moot.

reform of doctrine yes, reform of practice, no. There’s a clear line of people throughout history who reformed INSIDE the church, and they were canonized saints for their work.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benedictus2;8416531]
I think what needs to be clarified here is what PR is referring to when she uses the term symbolic and what you, David, refer to when you use the term symbolic.

You are saying that the bread and wine are only symbolically the Body and Blood of Christ. I doubt that PR agrees with you there.

There are symbolisms in the Eucharist but that part - it is not symbolic.

Ditto benedictus;

If I can piggy back here, the main difference in regards to the symbols, figurative terminology between david and Catholics is that a “change” occurs, when david holds that these symbols never change they remain just symbols of the body and blood.

Sacrament would be the term that places all believers in the RP without having to clarify each time what each person means by symbols, figurative speech. Reading davids reply post reveals that he did not get the difference.

Respectfully a Sacrament is never a symbol but a visible sign revealing a Spiritual reality described in Spiritual terms, instituted by Jesus Christ to part grace to the believer.

A symbol lacks the life of the Spirit and remains dead, until the Word of God “changes” it and behold He makes all things new.

For how can bread made from the hands of men symbolizing the body of Christ give eternal life, when a bread symbol lacks any life from which to give life? A change must occurr “Sacramentally” to these symbols of bread and wine, when God reveals “but a body you prepared for me” Hebrews 10:5b, and when Jesus states “This is my body, This is my blood.”

If Jesus can take dirt from the ground and spit into it, then rub the clay on a man eyes born blind. If God can take spittle mud and heal a blind man. This is a sacrament being used by Jesus. Thank God Jesus did not institute mud made from spit to be one of His sacraments.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8418359]A change takes place, that is for sure, and while Melanchthon references Cyril and Vulgarius in the matter, and uses the phrase “substantially present”, even then there was a reticence to use substances the way Catholics do.

Great so a change takes place, I was not sure? So then the question remains the validity of the Eucharist and the change of substance? Your Apology still carries the connotations that a change occurrs, but the RP remains “with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament”?

Really Jon, if I had not known you wrote this, I would of been convinced that your Apology is describing Transubstantiation and a Roman Catholic wrote it. That is why I question then how is it that the RP remains “with those things which are seen, bread and wine?”

Do you have a name for this, because it is right on with Transubstantiation. Who wrote this Apology?

This sounds curiously like Sacramental Union, as a parallel to the Hypostatic Union, and the Incarnation. Is that the intent, a reference to the Incarnation??

It’s all of the above including the Eucharist, one example why the Eucharist can never be defined in human terms.

Great post Jon:thumbsup:

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8418949:

Read St. Ignatius.

I did find Tertullian, “We also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be eaten at mealtimes,and enjoined to be taken by all”. This is one of his listed, “traditions”, ( that is ,“No passage of scripture has prescribed it”- not the Eucharist but the mannerisms around it -daybreak ,presidents) The crown or DeCorona, ch. 3-4. Yes, Ignatius said, “proper eucharist is given by bishop or an appointee” -letter to smyrna ch 8