Literal or Symbolic?...

[PRmerger]

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.

You said you “attended two different types of elemental communion” as a Catholic.

What 2 different types of “elemental communion” did you experience? Bread and wine vs Bread alone?

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants have too many divorces as Catholics have too many annulments.

Not sure what your point is here.

I suspect you’re making an accusation that Catholic annulments are simply another way to divorce?

If this is your contention, then you are misinformed about exactly what an annulment is. It is not comparable to a divorce.

There is no way to dissolve a marriage, except through death. There is no such thing as a divorce in God’s eyes.

 

[david_ruiz]

Not sure what your point is here.

I suspect you’re making an accusation that Catholic annulments are simply another way to divorce?

If this is your contention, then you are misinformed about exactly what an annulment is. It is not comparable to a divorce.

There is no way to dissolve a marriage, except through death. There is no such thing as a divorce in God’s eyes.

Does not an annulment reverse history, treat the past as if it shouldn’t have happened, you know, a “mistake”. It just adds another level/definition of “mistake” . I guess is shouldn’t listen to Catholic radio. But you are right, CC dogma is perfect, it is just that some bishops find a different way to skin the cat, “legally”. Divorce and it’s grounds are not the same as annulment’s grounds, but the ends are same. Defrauding at the altar is no worse (hardened heart) than defrauding the wedding bed later with adultery (hardened heart) .Is that why Jesus allowed that grounds for divorce ? Another thread. Divorce is bad, but so is being proud of not allowing it, yet fudging the spirit of annulment .

 

[PRmerger]

Does not an annulment reverse history, treat the past as if it shouldn’t have happened, you know, a “mistake”.

No, david.

An annulment is a declaration of nullity. It states that no sacramental union existed.

Is that why Jesus allowed that grounds for divorce ?

Think about this, david: if you really believe that Jesus allowed adultery to be the only reason for divorcing your wife validly, and you want to divorce your wife…what are you going to do? Of course, you’re going to commit adultery.

Does that make sense?

Do you think that’s what Jesus allowed–you can commit adultery, and then you can now divorce your wife?

That’s simply :whacky:

What the Scriptures actually say is that divorce is allowed in the case of porneia–which means illicit relationship. Not adultery.

 

[david_ruiz]

But whether the participants wilfully decide to work agains the grace even does not negate the reality that the bread is Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

No, david.

An annulment is a declaration of nullity. It states that no sacramental union existed.

Think about this, david: if you really believe that Jesus allowed adultery to be the only reason for divorcing your wife validly, and you want to divorce your wife…what are you going to do? Of course, you’re going to commit adultery.

Does that make sense?

Do you think that’s what Jesus allowed–you can commit adultery, and then you can now divorce your wife?

That’s simply :whacky:

What the Scriptures actually say is that divorce is allowed in the case of porneia–which means illicit relationship. Not adultery.

So adultery is lawful and permitted ? Are not all relationships illicit , that is imperfect, breaking God’s perfect law, right from the beginning ?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8419592:

benedictus2;8412852:

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?

Is this the same Eucharist of the last Supper that was so effectual that shortly thereafter one apostle betrayed Christ, one denied Him three times, and 9 scattered and hid ? Why the Eucharist is so effectual that Catholics need not the power of the Holy Spirit? Is confirmation lip service ? Perhaps you are right .The early persecuted church relied on PR cause I don’t think they had "confirmation " yet. Why did you need a charismatic movement ? I am saying that the Holy Spirit and His sanctifying work can not be contained solely in the sacraments, and actually is outside the sacraments.

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?:eek

Thank you for not totally botching or misreading .You could have said I think non-RPers are better than the apostles ! I am saying your superior claim on RP has not made you more superior in this spiritual walk, hence not relatively effectual, as compared to non -RPers. I was quite clear that we are all sinners ,on both sides of this issue .

 

[benedictus2]

You really have no idea, do you? Protestants have different Churches and so (in your mind) they must all be in conflict. That isn’t the case…we are united in Christ. Each of the three Churches that I attend fully regognize the other two as part of the body of Christ…no qualifications whatsoever. They are all part of Christ’s Church…the one Christ established and the one that he keeps united in him.

Yeah right. If they are so united then why are they split up? You are deluding yourself if you think you are united. You have common doctrines but you have different doctrines. Some believe in baptism, some don’t. Some in infant baptism. Some dont’. Some believe OSAS, some dont. Wake up and smell the ever growing divide.

a Church is determined by its practice wrt the Lord’s Supper? 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”.

A Church is determined by its practice wrt the Lord’s supper? Determined in what senses? Determined in the manner that it defines whether it is a Church of Christ or not?

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),

Quite wrong Radical. The Last Supper was not a full blown passover meal. There was no lamb.

Secondly, the Last Supper was not a legal passover.

no altar,

The table is altar. The Eucharist is both Meal and Sacrifice.

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?),

Because where one receives in one form or both, the bread and wine is each fully the Body and Blood of Christ.

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).

And that is still done in some diocese. When the gathering is small. We do that in our group. The individual host is a done for easy distribution.

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.

The doctrine remains the same. In your case the doctrine varies from one church to the next according to what the pastor (as Pope) has determined.

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.

Actually it is because the bread is Christ, the wine is His blood. That is what defines the Last Supper. The change of the bread into His Body and Blood. Otherwise, it is nothing more than just another Seder. Profound, but just another Seder meal.

united in Christ…have you heard of the concept?

Are you? When you can’t decide what Christ really taught?

Christ is the source of unity, not Eucharistic practice.

True. Christ is the source of unity. So what does the fact that there is no unity among you say? Hmmm?

Your emphasis is on form and not substance and that is exactly what plagued the Pharisees.

Au contraire. From the beginning the emphasis was always on Christ, the fact that the bread IS Christ.

Form, that is your corner. That is all you are left with - form but no substance because the bread remains just bread. The Substance is missing.

I have no idea what you think was so decisive about my confirmation that the Lord’s Supper is the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I have never met a Christian who thought otherwise…it is a given.

Ergo, the Last Supper is both Sacrifice and Meal.

The Lord’s Supper is entirely about looking to the cross…is it that you have focused so much on the details of practice or that you have added so much other meaning to the sacrament that you have lost sight of the Cross?
who’s shopping? I attend different Churches to fellowship at Church with my friends and family…I think that important

Oh yeah. How is mere bread looking at the cross where the Lamb of God was crucified. Bread is just that bread. But since we say it is not just mere bread, then we can truly say that the Last Supper looks to the cross and the resurrection. That is what the Eucharist is.

 

[benedictus2]

I thought it was more like the fellow doing a very vigorous “end zone” dance w/o realizing that he has just run the wrong way (and just scored on himself) Oh well, GO TEAM benedictus2!

No, go Team lyrical. He was simply brilliant.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

No it wasn’t always the practice to distribute in both forms. I am not certain of my facts here but I think it has to do with the fear of spilling the precious blood. Also, during viral outbreaks distribution of the Blood is discouraged.

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

Just some questions to ponder.

Jon

Actually, it was the practice in the early Church to bring just ordinary leavened bread. In the western Church the shift came I think from Spain to do as would have been done at the Passover meal - use unleavened bread.

After the East - West Schism and in an attempt to patch up the difference, it was agreed that both types are valid.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

Hey, that is a very good point.

Besides, why would a symbolic bread bring condemnation as Paul says.

 

[benedictus2]

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

You are quibbling here. Clutching as straws. Do you have a full blown supper at your Church with all 4 cups, the eggs, bitter herbs, matzo, etc, etc, etc.

Thought not.

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

So tell me, Do you recline at table at your Lord’s Supper?

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

So do you have you Lord’s Supper in Aramaic?

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

So do we. And we drink wine. Not grace juice. By the way do you always use bread at every Church you go to or do you use crackers and grape juice?

Be honest now.

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

Except that the bread is not His Body is it?

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

Perhaps because what is similar is what matters. The most important thing at that Passover meal is the fact that the bread became His Body and the wine became His Blood. Without that, it is just another Seder meal. If that is all you are after, then you might ask a Jewish friend for an invite.

 

[benedictus2]

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”.

I think Gabe’s point was that if one spilt the blood one could end up stepping on them. They were very careful not desecrate the Host and the Precious Blood. Which is why back then one receives communion with plate place under the chin to make sure that the Host does not fall to the ground.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

If a Catholic does not work towards converting another Christian towards the fullness of faith and the fullness of Truth, then THAT is what is regrettable. That would be like having all the goodies and not wanting to share it.

And no Christian’s are not united. You truly are deluding yourself if you think that. Evangelicals go to Catholic countries and work hard - armed with lies and wrong doctrine - towards converting Catholics to Protestantism. The great push of Protestants is not towards converting atheists or non-Christians but towards converting Catholics !!!

So stop all that non-sense about unity.

This is one of the biggest things that makes me different from you, especially where unity is concerned.

Pretent unity you mean.

I can enjoy meaningful unity with other Christians even if they don’t belong to my specific denomination.

How can you be united if you believe different things? The reason there are splits - schisms - within protestantism is precisely because there are differences in doctrine. So how can you even pretend that there is unity. There isn’t. If you are united, there would be only One Protestant Church. Your unity hangs by a flimsy thread.

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.

That’s not enjoying unity, That’s shopping and restaurant hopping as he so very clearly put it.

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.

Yes, commitment phobia has translated even to the church.
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.
Building relationships with different individuals is not the same as being a member of three different Churches. If they are indeed 3 different Churches then they would have different doctrines at some point. What does he do, believe all of them even when they conflict or does he just pick and choose? My analogy about 3 girlffriends is spot on.

Again, that’s the unity I’m talking about.

And that is not quite the same as being a member of 3 different Churches simultaneously unless they are just local parishes or the same denomination.

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.

To a point, Catholics can evangelize with Protestants. But only so far, because the erroneous doctrine shows up pretty quickly and we cannot ride along with error.

And one can’t bury the differences under the carpet because they are huge, sizeable chunks

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.

Okay, I’ll check that. I try to concentrate on those who have replied to me but for some reason I keep missing your post and I end butting my nose on other people’s conversations.

 

[benedictus2]

The Matzo symbolizes a lot of different things at different points throughout the meal, but its primary focus is on the redemption of God’s chosen people and the ways in which they were rescued from bondage. The takeaway from the Last Supper is that Jesus’ flesh is the means by which all people- Jew and Gentile- can be redeemed and rescued from bondage to sin and restored to a right relationship with God.

But I have raised this point before. Please provide support that this is indeed how the Jews understood it.

You gave me 3 links. This understanding (the one you have stated above) is not to be found in any of them as regards the Matzo ALONE. There is nothing there that said that the Matzo itself is symbolic of their deliverance from bondage. The Seder Meal yes, but not the Matzo by itself.

I’m not sure why you emphasized Matzo itself. I hope that answered the question, but I suspect it did not.

Because in your very first attempt at explaining the symbolical interpretation of “This is My Body” when Jesus took the bread (the Matzo) that is the explanation you gave.

So I asked, where in Judaic teaching do you find whatever you have written refer to the Matzo. Remember, when Jesus said “This is My Body”, He was not referring to the Seder meal, He was only referring to the bread. So the explanation has to be specific to the bread.

I think you’re coming at this with some ill-thought-out preconceptions of what I need in order to make the kinds of connections I’m making. Here’s the deal.

The wine is symbolic. I’m glad you can stop arguing with me about that. This symbolism is primarily linked to the Exodus from Egypt, as is the entire Seder. Its main focus is on the redemptions promised by God in Exodus 6:6-7. Take you out, deliver you, redeem you, acquire you as a nation. The obvious link is seen when you understand that Jesus is using this well-established symbolism in order to say something about His (literal) blood (the stuff that was shed on the Cross). It’s the means by which people are redeemed, delivered from bondage, acquired as children of God, and so forth.

But I am still arguing with you about it. You say the wine is symbolic. Okay. You particularly referred to the third cup. Okay again.

But, what is the 3rd Cup symbolic of? How does this relate to Christ’s blood? You said that the 3rd Cup is symbolic of the blood of the lamb that was smeared on the door posts. So I asked you, is this really the case? Did the Jews connect the 3rd Cup with the blood of the lamb that was smeared on the door posts? You gave me links to the symbolisms in the Seder meal. But one cannot find this way of interpreting the 3rd Cup in the links you provided.

Earlier on, you actually did ask a good question about the New Covenant (or Testament) in Jesus’ blood and how that could be linked to anything in the Seder. It took some time, but I did track something down for that. I think you were looking at the OC as if it exclusively applies to Mount Sinai and not to the Exodus from Egypt, but I knew there was an obvious covenantal connection to be made with the original night of Passover. I found it in Jeremiah 31:31-33, and this is referenced in Hebrews 10 as well.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

But I have already made that connection before. I gave a talk on this and relating the Mt Sinai covenant with Jer 31:31

But you see, that kind of link “I” can make because I am saying that the bread is His Body, the wine is HIs Blood. This is how God writes His Law into our hearts, by giving us His Body and His Blood; by transforming us into the image of His Son. The dashing of the blood on the people was not enough, the Blood has to be in us.

But you can’t make that connection if the bread and wine are only symbolic.

So if you’re still wondering what the New Covenant thing was about, there is no connection to Sinai.

There is a connection to Sinai because that was the Old Covenant. Now He is making a New Covenant. There would not be a New Covenant if there was no Old Covenant.

Instead, it’s a connection to the covenant that God made with the “fathers” of Jesus and His disciples on the day when He took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt.

But don’t you know that the covenant was done after He took them out of Egypt? What Jer 31:31 is referring to is the covenant at Sinai. There was no covenant when they were walking out of Egypt. The covenant was struck at Sinai.

This New Covenant that Jesus speaks of is the one that was prophesied in Jeremiah, specifically in relation to the covenant that God made with Israel on the day He led them out of Egypt.

If you read Exodus, I don’t think you will find a covenant being struck when they were being led out of Egypt. That was done at Sinai.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh, you know about it, do you? Well, could you demonstrate some knowledge at your earliest possible convenience? As much as I appreciate the Socratic method, it would be nice if you could show me something that’s not exclusive to the art of ball-breaking.

That is soooo funny. You have me rolling here. This woman I used to work with came to mind. She was quite famous in the office for being such. I have never been put in this category before so I suppose there is always a first time.

Okay, where do I start.

How about I take you on a slightly different tangent. Jesus was at the Passover. The Passover as you said is significant for the Jews being anamnesis. I do not want to use the word remembrance because it falls short of what anamnesis is.

So here at the supper where the Jews “make present” (anamnesis) their deliverance from Egyp, Jesus does this totally mind blowing thing - He gives them His Body and Blood to eat.

It is interesting because there was no lamb. Yet, Passover meals are supposed to include a lamb. The Jews eat the lamb whose blood is what signaled the angel of death to pass over them. But here is Jesus saying this Is my Body “which will be given for you”. At this point, Jesus as the Lamb of God is giving them His Body in the form of bread, the Body that will be given up the next day. So while there is no lamb at their table, there they were eating the Lamb of God who truly takes away sin and death.

A little goes a long way, and sometimes I’m concerned that you don’t know when enough is enough.

Well how about you explain what is supposed to be enough?
Are we not debating here? Are you not the one who gave that long and detailed explanation? So why are you upset that I am calling that into question?

Are you trying to say that I should just accept it without a critical thought?

The links took you to some of the most basic material out there, and the goal was to demonstrate that a Passover Seder is a symbolic meal with lots of symbols. I feel like that goal was largely accomplished, because you acknowledged this obvious/undeniable/empirical fact for the first time in your most recent post that was directed at me.

But you see this is where the problem is. You like, paint with a broad brush and you miss out on a lot of details. You think so long as you have done a wide sweep that is it. You think the broad explains the particular.

I never questioned the symbolism of the Seder itself. If that is all you wanted to do then that would have been fine. The problem is when you tried to link the very specific part of the Last Supper to particular elements in the Seder. That is where the problem arose.

You are in a bind though, because you had to try to make those connections - your position forces you to.

The Matzo and the Cup already symbolized some really important things. In that regard, they were like giant arrows pointing to the things they symbolize. What Jesus did was not an act of transforming arrows into vessels of grace- rather, he indicated that the things they pointed to are properly equated with Him.

Okay, here i am again. What does the Matzo and the Cup symbolize. You made a fuzzy connection to sinlessness but you couldn’t develop it. I think this is a connection that Protestants make based on what Jesus said about the leaven of the pharisees. He is not disparaging leaven per se but hypocrisy which is the leaven of the pharisees.

Then there was the 3rd Cup which did not connect either.

As I said above, it is when you start trying to fine tune your exegesis that you fell short. Connections can be made but it was not the connection that you were making. Maybe you can develop it further.

It wasn’t lame, and really, you call that a rebuttal? Tell you what, you say you know all about this. Since I’ve already answered this question in detail (which you have evidently ignored), why don’t you give it a shot. What is the particular symbolism of the Matzo and the Cup?

The Matzo is the bread of affliction. It is the bread of the poor. But later on it also came to symbolize the passage from Egypt because they had to flee and so the bread did not rise.

This part though I tend to question because if you read the account in Exodus, it is not that the bread did not rise on account of them having to flee. They were specifically instructed by the Lord to bake it without leaven. So, if it is symbolic of deliverance, it is only due to the fact that it is the bread that they ate on the eve of their departure from Egypt.

Here is a more detailed explanation from a Rabbi and a Jewish website

ou.org/chagim/pesach/inner.htm
ou.org/holidays/pesach/matzah_the_main_symbol

The 3rd Cup is the cup of redemption but the Jews do not equate it with the blood of the Lamb that was dashed on the door posts. For the Jews it is simply the wine that signifies redemption

The phrase attached to the 3rd cupis this:

I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and great judgements.

I find that phrasing interesting: with an outstretched arm. In Jesus’s case, the redemption was done with outstretched arms.

Here is a good commentary on the 4cups. Well worth reading

torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Four%20Cups.pdf

 

[AntalKalnoky]

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

Shhhhh… not in Public. Let’s hope one Church has Eucharistic Adoration. Some think that is the easiest way to convince an atheist of God…

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Thread #242, 248, 253 and 325 . The authors are knowledgeable Catholics , sharing 11, 000 threads. You would be only the third Catholic I have seen admit that there are symbols (bread and wine) at the Eucharist celebration (howbeit before consecration), if that is what you implied .

The very Teaching in Grade School by Catholic Church Is that the Consecrated Bread Wine are The Real Presence Christ, retaining the Appearance of Bread/Wine also, David. It’s not an easy concept to grasp, even now that I’m an adult. But I’ve seen the Evidence at Every Communion, and the Results, and the Eucharistic impossible Miracles. And I don’t doubt Anything Christ Said! :tsktsk:

 

[benedictus2]

Shhhhh… not in Public. Let’s hope one Church has Eucharistic Adoration. Some think that is the easiest way to convince an atheist of God…

That is an interesting thought.

I read a short conversion story that went like this:
This lady was at a meditation group, sitting next to another lady who happened to be Protestant. At some point during the meditation she got up and said to the Protestant lady, I have to go to Adoration now. The Protestant asked: What is Adoration.

She started to explain, but then said instead : let me show you.

So she took this lady to Adoration with her explaining that Jesus is really in the Host in the Monstrance.

Later on, this Protestant lady emailed her saying that she had been Christian all her life but she had never met Jesus till she went with her for Adoration. She said that she was in RCIA and was being received into the Church that Easter.

 

[david_ruiz]

Shhhhh… not in Public. Let’s hope one Church has Eucharistic Adoration. Some think that is the easiest way to convince an atheist of God…

A better way is, “Meditate how to save a soul by the Word…”, Branabus #19- Early Church Father. Yes, scriptural interpretation of John 6 is part of His Word, but way down the list of things to talk about to a lost sinner. Billy Graham has led thousands to meet Jesus, in spirit, not body, unto regeneration, by a famous refrain , "The bible says … "