Literal or Symbolic?...

[You]

…Man have you got your priorites mixed up. It is about Christ and not whether leavened or unleavened bread is used. It is Christ’s Church and not the “Church of a Certain Eucharistic Practice”. What never fails to amaze me is how blindly selective you are in what you follow. Your Eucharist is nothing like the Last Supper, but you entirely ignore the differences. The Last Supper was a full blown passover meal…no Latin (which your Church seemed to think essential for some time), no altar, a full fellowship meal (not a bit of wafer and a drop or two of wine…wasn’t it common to deny wine for a while in your Church?), no seperation from the person breaking the bread, actual bread that pieces are broken from (not some little wafers that aren’t broken off from one another). Further, the practice at your Catholic Church is different from the practice of Catholic Churches centuries earlier, but you wouldn’t suggest that means that you lack continuity with the earlier Catholic Churches. Your Eucharistic practices don’t come remotely close to what Christ did with his disciples at the Last Supper, so by your reasoning the Church present at the Last Supper would not be yours.
…

At the last supper they had unleavened bread and wine.
At Mass they have unleavened bread and wine.

At the last supper He took the bread in His hands blessed it and broke it…
At Mass the priest takes the bread in His hands blesses it and brakes it…

At the last supper and He gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
At Mass the priest repeats His words Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

At the last supper He, taking the chalice, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
At Mass the priest repeats His words taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

At the last supper He said For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
At Mass the priest repeats His words For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

 

[JonNC]

At the last supper they had unleavened bread and wine.
At Mass they have unleavened bread and wine.

At the last supper He took the bread in His hands blessed it and broke it…
At Mass the priest takes the bread in His hands blesses it and brakes it…

At the last supper and He gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
At Mass the priest repeats His words Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

**At the last supper He, taking the chalice, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
At Mass the priest repeats His words taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.**At the last supper He said For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
At Mass the priest repeats His words For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

On the bolded, is it the consistent practice of the Catholic Church, in response to Christ’s words that you mention, “Drink ye all of this”, that all can drink of it?

Also, are the Orthodox inconsistent with Christ’s actions when they use leavened bread?

Just some questions to ponder.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying that Christ’s church is nothing more than different restaurants?

Restaurants can go bust and close and it would not matter one bit. So Christ’s church must be the same for you.

And if that is so, then you are saying that what Christ willed does not matter because if there is one thing He expressly willed, it is to establish a Church.

'zactly.

I think this tangent of the discourse limns quite accurately the vast difference between the Protestant vs the Catholic paradigm regarding Church.

Catholics see their relationship with Christ as akin to marriage–it is sacred, HOLY and elevating. Marriage is the icon which points quite magnificently to THE MARRIAGE of Christ and His Church.

Many Protestants view their relationship with Christ as going to a restaurant.

http://www.99w.com/evilsam/ff/blimpie.jpg

 

[You]

On the bolded, is it the consistent practice of the Catholic Church, in response to Christ’s words that you mention, “Drink ye all of this”, that all can drink of it?

Also, are the Orthodox inconsistent with Christ’s actions when they use leavened bread?

Just some questions to ponder.

Jon

No need to ponder. All can eat and drink. If you spill a drop of Christ’s blood on to your cloths or the floor what will you do Jon, step on His Blood. For that reason the chalice is left to the priest to drink. But yes, anyone can drink from it as evidenced by every celiac who cannot receive the host.
If Christ used unleavened bread and the Orthodox use leavened bread then yes they are being inconsistent as you say.

 

[pablope]

benedictus2;8412852:

So we agree at least

. Sounds like RP is real important . Sounds like it is the key to everything.

Why do you think it is not important, David? Those who do not believe in it downplay its importance, doesn’t it?

What do you think sustained those early christians who were being hunted down and slaughtered in the Roman colisuem…a symbolic Eucharist or the Real presence in the Eucharist?

John 15:10 says: If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.

What does He command in John 6? Eat His flesh, drink His blood. Have you kept that commandment?

No, in John 6 His command is to believe who He is and what He did ( would do) for us. He said it because obviously some did not believe accordingly .Why would He say it if everybody alrea
dy believed ?

What you do not seem to realize, David, is that when God/Jesus gave a command in the Gospels or Bible, it was literal. Nothing symbolic about it. It was direct and well understood. I think this has been the gist of what Benedictus and PR had been trying to point out.

And it seems the only one being taken to be symbolic is the partaking of His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

And you think they were saying to themselves, “Wow, He just transubstantiated Himself. We are eating Him, super spiritual food and grace” ? One hour later one "RP eater would betray Him. Another would deny him 3 times . The rest, but one, scattered and hid.

So you are saying that those who believe in the RP are inferior, prone to a lot of sinning as compared to those who do not believe in the Real Presence and are a lot better persons?

 

[Radical]

At the last supper they had unleavened bread and wine.
At Mass they have unleavened bread and wine.

it was the Last Supper, not the last wafer and last few drops

At the last supper He took the bread in His hands blessed it and broke it…
At Mass the priest takes the bread in His hands blesses it and brakes it…

Christ was reclining at the table amongst the disciples… not dressed in a particular fashion and separated from the participants

At the last supper and He gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
At Mass the priest repeats His words Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

Christ said quite a bit in Aramaic that night as he conversed with his disciples,

At the last supper He, taking the chalice, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
At Mass the priest repeats His words taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

and every disciple drank from that cup as they remained at the table…it wasn’t just Christ who drank or just a few disciples, they all drank

At the last supper He said For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
At Mass the priest repeats His words For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

I have never particpated in a Lord’s Supper where the words of Christ that you mention weren’t spoken

Your post demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. You select what is similar and disregard what is so terribly different.

 

[You]

it was the Last Supper, not the last wafer and last few drops

It is not a wafer. Wafers you eat with ice-cream.
It is unleavened bread and a chalice of wine.

Christ was reclining at the table amongst the disciples… not dressed in a particular fashion and separated from the participants

It used to be that the priest would have his back to the congregation. The priest and all the people would be facing the altar. Christ sacrificed Himself on Calvary for many. Calvary was the altar on which God was sacrificed to save your life. At the last supper Christ said the words This is my body. Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
The altar is Calvary, which all the people face, as the priest/bishop, the successor of the Apostles offers Mass; the last supper included that sacrifice of Christ’s Life on the altar of Calvary with His words Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Christ said quite a bit in Aramaic that night as he conversed with his disciples,

And the Apostles and Holy Spirit recorded what was important to us.

and every disciple drank from that cup as they remained at the table…it wasn’t just Christ who drank or just a few disciples, they all drank

And all still do receive both flesh and blood. Out of respect for His blood and the danger it might be lost only the priest, the eucharistic ministers [lay people], and celiac sufferers etc. receive the blood, Christ is fully in both the body and blood.

I have never particpated in a Lord’s Supper where the words of Christ that you mention weren’t spoken

Great, you cannot fault the CC on that score.

Your post demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. You select what is similar and disregard what is so terribly different.

The Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, told you what was essential for you.
This is My body. This is My blood.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Melanchthon wrote the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Your final comment here, again, I suspect is the reason for growing convergence on the Eucharist between Lutheran and Catholics. Did you see any of the threads about Pope Benedict’s visit with the Lutherans in Germany? He talks about how, now, our agreements are so much more obvious than they were at the time of the Reformation.

Jon

Melanchthon wrote the Apology? Then this was never the work from the founder of Lutheranism Martin Luther? This Apology comes later? So Lutherans after Martin Luther begin defining the doctrines of Lutheranism.

This adds to my many questions about Lutheranism today? So what I introduce here to you is meant for future threads. I can follow Martin Luther when he holds to Augustinian theology, but I lose him when he leaves Augustine. Now I find Lutherans such as your self maintaining an Augustinian Catholic theology.

It takes a German to know and understand a German. We are blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI today. If anyone can see through the storm of Lutherans and Catholics this Pope can.

I have come across some threads and news releases and from them, I can see a gap closing between Lutherans (refusing consubstantiation) and Catholics on the Eucharist understanding. I can agree that our Pope and Lutherans today are shedding more light today on the shadows from the reformation. Iam sure our Pope has a special place in his heart for our separated brethren from the reformation who were all Catholics at one time, especially Lutherans.

Finding common ground on the Eucharist is a huge step towards communion. I hope cooler heads prevail here. We have to remember that the Rock does not change and has weathered the storms. While the seas are calm now since the reformation, let us pray while it is day all darkness and shadows be removed so that the light of Truth prevails all oppositions.

Peace be with you Jon, and thanks for the updates from your Lutheran faith on consubstantiation

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;8421646]Melanchthon wrote the Apology? Then this was never the work from the founder of Lutheranism Martin Luther? This Apology comes later? So Lutherans after Martin Luther begin defining the doctrines of Lutheranism.

Actually, they were contemporaries, and friends.

This adds to my many questions about Lutheranism today? So what I introduce here to you is meant for future threads. I can follow Martin Luther when he holds to Augustinian theology, but I lose him when he leaves Augustine. Now I find Lutherans such as your self maintaining an Augustinian Catholic theology.

It takes a German to know and understand a German. We are blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI today. If anyone can see through the storm of Lutherans and Catholics this Pope can.

I agree.

I have come across some threads and news releases and from them, I can see a gap closing between Lutherans (refusing consubstantiation) and Catholics on the Eucharist understanding. I can agree that our Pope and Lutherans today are shedding more light today on the shadows from the reformation. Iam sure our Pope has a special place in his heart for our separated brethren from the reformation who were all Catholics at one time, especially Lutherans.

Again, agreed.

Finding common ground on the Eucharist is a huge step towards communion. I hope cooler heads prevail here. We have to remember that the Rock does not change and has weathered the storms. While the seas are calm now since the reformation, let us pray while it is day all darkness and shadows be removed so that the light of Truth prevails all oppositions.

Peace be with you Jon, and thanks for the updates from your Lutheran faith on consubstantiation

Peace also with you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=You;8421458]No need to ponder. All can eat and drink. If you spill a drop of Christ’s blood on to your cloths or the floor what will you do Jon, step on His Blood.

Why would I step on his blood? Why would you think I would? Luther is reported to have once gotten on his knees and lapped it up. Certainly great respect and care should be taken, but Christ said “drink of it all of you”.

For that reason the chalice is left to the priest to drink. But yes, anyone can drink from it as evidenced by every celiac who cannot receive the host.

This wasn’t always the case, as you know.

If Christ used unleavened bread and the Orthodox use leavened bread then yes they are being inconsistent as you say.

And yet Rome recognizes Orthodox Eucharist as valid.

My point isn’t to be accusatory, but to point out that there are differing practices, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong.

Jon

 

[You]

Why would I step on his blood? Why would you think I would? Luther is reported to have once gotten on his knees and lapped it up. Certainly great respect and care should be taken, but Christ said “drink of it all of you”.

Yes, and anyone who needs to receive christ in the chalice can do so.

This wasn’t always the case, as you know.

Celiac disease was not known before it was known. When it was known we see no problem.

And yet Rome recognizes Orthodox Eucharist as valid.

My point isn’t to be accusatory, but to point out that there are differing practices, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong.

Jon

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” Nos. 48-50, which states:

"[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

---

From the Orthodox Church in America

For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.

Sometimes people argue, “But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches.” If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, “Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven’t you become an Orthodox Christian?”

 

[cooterhein]

Well no. Unless I misunderstood Radical, he is going to really 3 different churches as attested by the fact that they have different ways of celebrating the Lord’s supper. Maybe one is Baptist another, Methodist, etc, etc.

So there is no unity there whatsoever.

Christians are united when they can mutually affirm one another as Christians (which you can do with many non-Catholics) AND when neither Christian feels like one must convert the other (which you cannot do with non-Catholics). Well…actually, you can. But this would make you a bad Catholic. This is most regrettable, btw.

This is one of the biggest things that makes me different from you, especially where unity is concerned. I can enjoy meaningful unity with other Christians even if they don’t belong to my specific denomination. Same with Radical- he can enjoy meaningful unity with Christians from three different churches, even when they have different ways of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The fact that he attends three different churches is evidence of the unity I’m talking about.

If the Church matters, you would not be shopping around. So yes, it is like having 3 different boyfriends or girl friends as the case may be.

Who says he’s shopping around? I don’t think he said they’re all candidates for “home church of the future.” It sounds more like something where he’s staying involved with three different churches in different capacities. I can relate with that; I’ve built strong relationships with families and individuals (both clergy and laity) in more than three churches just in my immediate area.

Again, that’s the unity I’m talking about. Not only do we not feel like we have to convert one another, we can cooperate fully in evangelizing others. That’s how I got to know some of these people- by evangelizing with them. We’ve stayed close. I actually caught up with a father-son duo from a Free Church that I worked with doing an evangelism thing a few years back. (The dad is the area director). They came and spoke at a men’s breakfast at my home church, which is not a Free Church. Nevertheless, they weren’t there to convert us. They spent some time on their personal testimonies and caught us up with the ministry they’re doing in the area, and they outlined the different ways we can get people involved with that.

This is unity.

BTW, if you have replied to my post and I have missed it again, can you let me know? I try to respond to all the posts directed at me but I don’t always see them.

Page 24, post 359. It’s ok, it happens. This thread’s moving kind of fast, and I’m not the most consistent contributor, comparatively speaking. Thanks for asking about it.

Kind of funny how it took on a life of its own. The OP hasn’t checked in for quite some time; I hope he got a satisfactory answer to his question. I guess that’s how it goes sometimes, though.

 

[PRmerger]

Your post demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. You select what is similar and disregard what is so terribly different.

Well, yes. The Church was given the authority to do this by Jesus in Matthew 16. So what we do that’s similar is because Jesus wants us to do that.

And what we disregard is because Jesus wants us to disregard.

Just like you take certain elements–such as using water to baptize, like Jesus did. But you disregard other aspects of Jesus’ baptism (by his cousin, for example. I am certain that it is not a requirement in your church that you be baptized by your cousin.). You do this because you have not divorced yourself from this aspect of the faith of the Apostles, as you have done with the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

This is one of the biggest things that makes me different from you, especially where unity is concerned. I can enjoy meaningful unity with other Christians even if they don’t belong to my specific denomination.

Sure. Until you start talking theology with them.

They spent some time on their personal testimonies and caught us up with the ministry they’re doing in the area, and they outlined the different ways we can get people involved with that.

No one, of course, could disagree with “feed the hungry” or “clothe the naked.”

It’s when you start talking about what the Bible says in all the other verses that you get, well…

disunity.

And the obscenity of tens of thousands of different denominations.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well no. Unless I misunderstood Radical, he is going to really 3 different churches as attested by the fact that they have different ways of celebrating the Lord’s supper. Maybe one is Baptist another, Methodist, etc, etc.

So there is no unity there whatsoever.

If the Church matters, you would not be shopping around. So yes, it is like having 3 different boyfriends or girl friends as the case may be.

If one girl friend is dumb, then I go to the intelligent one. If one girlfriend is intelligent but not too pretty, I will go with the pretty one when I am in the mood for a pretty one, and so forth.

I suppose it is not wonder that Protestant denominations approve of divorce…

As a Catholic I attended two different types of elemental communion, or as you say, different ways of celebrating. Now did I go to two different churches, no, both were Roman rite Catholic. Shall I say there is no unity whatsoever ? Come on, because one uses real bread and another some white wafer (Radical) ? What, is the Catholic Church so united that Her communion wafer is made to exact specifications, for worldwide distribution, and do these specifications have apostolic tradition ? … Yes, Protestants have too many divorces as Catholics have too many annulments.

 

[PRmerger]

As a Catholic I attended two different types of elemental communion, or as you say, different ways of celebrating.

Can you explain what you mean by this, david?

 

[david_ruiz]

Sure. Until you start talking theology with them.

No one, of course, could disagree with “feed the hungry” or “clothe the naked.”

It’s when you start talking about what the Bible says in all the other verses that you get, well…

disunity.

And the obscenity of tens of thousands of different denominations.

Do you have a source for such diversity ? The main source (book/study) for that number says Catholics have thousands also using the same criteria to get your 20,000. The only obscenity is the misuse of the study . What is that saying, about lying and statistics being the same ? That you are more unified is correct, but at a price (the dignity of individual enlightenment/ freedom .That we are more diversified/freer with personal divine revelation , is correct, at the expense of unity. Again, we are all sinners ,only God be true and perfect.

 

[PRmerger]

As you know we do not always have “liturgical” -canned prayers, so it may vary .What does not vary is the universal quoting of the Lord’s words from the Passover/Last Supper before the elements are passed out.

This, sadly, shows your lack of catechesis as a Catholic. And your lack of familiarity with the Scriptures.

For all of those “canned prayers” that the priest recited when you were a Catholic come from the Scriptures.

So if you are against the priest reciting “canned prayers” then you are against any man proclaiming the sacred words of holy writ.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have a source for such diversity ? The main source (book/study) for that number says Catholics have thousands also using the same criteria to get your 20,000. The only obscenity is the misuse of the study . What is that saying, about lying and statistics being the same ? That you are more unified is correct, but at a price (the dignity of individual enlightenment/ freedom .That we are more diversified/freer with personal divine revelation , is correct, at the expense of unity. Again, we are all sinners ,only God be true and perfect.

I will gladly consider your number of Christian denominations.

Please give me what number of actual Christian denominations you believe there are, and what your source is for this, and perhaps I will use that statistic the next time I enter into a discussion such as this.

 

[david_ruiz]

Can you explain what you mean by this, david?

Well the context is the elements used in communion .The types of bread and the types of “wine”…Again, I have been told wine in NT could be the grape juice from day 1(no fermenation ) to quite intoxicating wine. So one church uses bread already broken up ,another a full loaf ,which is broken up at the altar, another uses a wafer.One uses grape juice wine ,and another alcoholic wine. Some saw this as disunity.What do you think ? Now to your question, the Catholic Church usually gives out the wafer only . But sometimes they also distribute the wine . So depending to which Catholic Church and service you go to, you would have two different ways (elemental) of celebrating Eucharist, one with wafer only, another with wafer and alcohol wine . I do not see this as disunity, but rewarding diversity. That is how it was in the 60’s and 70’s. Don’t know about today.