Literal or Symbolic?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_GreyPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait,wait wait .Where does Paul say This Cup is our salvation, or drinking it is our salvation ? He says poor discernment (not recognizing) is a condemnation(and not sure that is loss of salvation).
Yes, poor discernment brings condemnation? What is it that if you do not discern it, brings condemnation? The Body of Christ. If you eat the bread without recognizing that it is the body of Christ, it will bring condemnation.

But since in your celebration (no matter how hard you may try) the bread is just bread, then there is no condemnation for you because it is just bread. In your church it is basically all just play acting.

Totally different if you should sneak into Mass and receive communion. That will bring condemnation.
 
Ok, here’s what I don’t understand. After countless pages of debate, the most basic of questions has not been asked. What did/does the Catholic Church have to gain by claiming the RP? Why would they go directly against scripture by eating and drinking the blood of a fellow human being? If, as David and Radical claim, we Catholics have it wrong, (And evidently have for a VERY long time) what is the point to this whole teaching? To be different? Because Catholics are just stubborn? To claim that Catholics have it wrong is to also claim that the original christians believed it was a symbol right? So how did the Catholic Church survive for so long with such an enormously false teaching? How did this Church convince the single largest christian Church in the world to believe such a falsehood that still exists today, when now their is no threat of persecution? The answer is simple, because Jesus is who He says/said He is and the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. Do not blind yourselves with modern “dogmas” but listen to the words of God the Son.
P.S. I believe my signature at the bottom of the page sums it up nicely. God bless.
 
this is my question for those who say that Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper and in John 6…

When Jesus said he would have to suffer and die…was he speaking literally?

If your answer is YES, then why can’t Jesus be speaking LITERALLY when he spoke of himself being the BREAD OF LIFE? Or at the Last Supper when he said “Take and Eat, this is my Body” and “This is the Cup of my Blood”?

After the resurrection, how did those disciples from the road to Emmaus recognize him?
Luke Chapter 24 verses 30 to 35 say that the disciples had come to recognize him in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD…
 
. . . .After the resurrection, how did those disciples from the road to Emmaus recognize him? Luke Chapter 24 verses 30 to 35 say that the disciples had come to recognize him in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD…
jediliz,
This is a very good point. 🙂

Luke 24: 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Peace,
Anna
 
Wait,wait wait .Where does Paul say This Cup is our salvation, or drinking it is our salvation ? He says poor discernment (not recognizing) is a condemnation(and not sure that is loss of salvation). That is not quite the same as saying good discernment/recognizing of the Cup is our salvation.Paul does not say this.This is all about partaking of communion worthily, as the ECF’s also said (make sure you are a Christian, confess your sins first etc). . . .
David,
I really don’t think you can support an argument against the Blood of Christ as the Cup of Salvation.

From Paul’s letter:
1 Corinthians 10: 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

How does one “participate” in the body and blood of Christ outside the Holy Eucharist?

The Blood of Christ is the Cup of Salvation, which we drink during the Holy Eucharist.

Peace,
Anna
 
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?
Literal and you have to believe that to be Catholic. If you do not believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ, you cannot convert. I do not know what they consider cradle Catholics who later disbelieve this fact, but I would assume it would make them a lapsed Catholic or a confused person or something.

Believing in the validity of the Eucharist is probably the most important belief of Catholicism and lacking that belief invalidates much of the Church’s teaching so unbelievers most likely aren’t any kind of Catholic in their hearts. Either you think priests are capable of asking God to turn the wafers into Christ’s body or you don’t. Once you assume it’s symbolic, you are saying you don’t believe God is capable, Jesus is willing or that you are given graces through attending the Last Supper in the perpetual moment.
 
But since in your celebration (no matter how hard you may try) the bread is just bread, then there is no condemnation for you because it is just bread. In your church it is basically all just play acting.
Hi Cory,
One can assume without qualification that David is not Lutheran. Do you believe your comment here applies to Lutherans as well? If so, do you agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s words that there is no reason to deny the salvation granting presence of Christ in a Lutheran Eucharist? And if you do, do you believe that if someone who does not discern the real presence of His body and blood receives a Lutheran Eucharist they eat and drink condemnation on themselves, since Christ’s salvation granting presence is there?

Just curious.
Jon
 
Christ Jesus was literally nailed to a Roman cross. He literally gave His body and blood as a sacrifice for our sins. He literally died, was buried, and literally rose again from the dead the third day. He literally gives the gift of eternal life to all who receive Him as Lord and Saviour. He will literally come again in power and glory. He is literally KING of kings and LORD of lords! Hallelujah! To quote Bishop Challoner from his commentary on St. Jn. 20:19, “The doors were shut- The same power which could bring Christ’s whole body, entire in all its dimensions, through the doors, can without the least question make the same body really present in the sacrament;though both the one and the other be above our comprehension.”
 
. . .But since in your celebration (no matter how hard you may try) the bread is just bread, then there is no condemnation for you because it is just bread. In your church it is basically all just play acting.
. . .
Hi Cory,
One can assume without qualification that David is not Lutheran. Do you believe your comment here applies to Lutherans as well? If so, do you agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s words that there is no reason to deny the salvation granting presence of Christ in a Lutheran Eucharist? And if you do, do you believe that if someone who does not discern the real presence of His body and blood receives a Lutheran Eucharist they eat and drink condemnation on themselves, since Christ’s salvation granting presence is there?

Just curious.
Jon
Hi Jon,

I always appreciate your posts. 🙂

Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments set aside the issue of succession as a means of denying the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist.

Succession aside, the same principle can be applied to the Anglican Eucharist. Many Anglicans believe in the Real Presence–even the metaphysical explanation of transubstantiation. There are Ordinariate-bound Anglican Priests, who are continuing to celebrate the Eucharist for their people, while awaiting entry into Communion with Rome. So, are they just play acting in the mean time?

I think there is some ecumenical progress, but we have a long way to go.

Peace,
Anna
 
:eek:
david ruiz;8468651:
Here is one response.

I believe it just means excommunicated.

I don’t know that it matters. You state you are Protestant raised Catholic. I suppose you could say David had shipwreck of the Faith, David was not Catechized, David is Protestant and has Catholic roots.

If you are Protestant according to this post Anathema no longer applies to those anathemas you listed. If you were truly Catholic and truly understood what you were doing in renouncing Catholicism then shipwreck might apply. Only you know and I really don’t think it matters, you are happy and you are here posting and I for the life of me cannot believe I am posting anything to you since I had given up on you long ago.:eek:

Thank-you. Probably does mean excommunicate. Trent was in 1585, so I imagine other decrees may have come to modify /change CC position .Don’t know. However, if you “truly” literally believe in CC doctrine, one must participate in RP communion for salvation. There is no way around it.
 
Of course, Jesus is the Messiah and has the words of life. What words of Spirit and life did Jesus speak? "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:54); “. . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)
Welcome back. You fail to address the beginning of the discourse, where there is salvation without any “eating” except figurative, by simply believing that Jesus is the Messiah (pretty much what Peter confessed). You also have people not believing that ,from the beginning , before any true eating verses. So you have oneness with Christ by faith before any true eating verses and separation also.
B]1 Corinthians 3:2
does use “milk” and “solid food” as a clear metaphor, as does Hebrews 5:12-13.
**
1 Peter 2** speaks of “spiritual milk.” The passage does not say the milk is “true milk”; and neither does 1 Corinthians 3:2 or Hebrews 5:12-13.

1 Peter 2: 1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
Glad we agree .Did you notice the metaphor was with eating the “word” ? Augustine says Peter ate the “word” of Jesus ,-“You have the words of life”. Peter did not say you have “the flesh of life”. Anyways, interesting the metaphors with ingesting the “word”.
The temple destroyed and raised up in three days was used as a metaphor for the Body of Jesus–which, btw, the passage explains; but something literal did happen: Jesus was raised from the dead.
Yes, good point on another metaphor .Too bad we receive no such explanation for John 6 .Some say it clicked at the last supper(for the apostles) .Others said not even then. I would say the figurative is implied and need not explaining because of the context of John 6 and the LS fit and sealed the deal for the apostles. The Remembrance was quite SPECIAL to the apostles, without any RP. They were there at the LS, and for the rest of there life really remembered it like no one else could . Remember how some recognized Jesus in the way He broke bread (nothing to do with RP) ?
The Biblical usage of milk and solid food figuratively/metaphorically, and other metaphors/parables, does not mean the Bread and Wine do not become the true Body and Blood of Christ during the Holy Eucharist.
Nope, it does not prove anything, but they can be evidences.
benedictus2 has already answered this very well:
Did not read their dialogue fully .I do know of some historians who place Augustine in a place where he quite clearly speaks of it figuratively, but also seems to indicate a literal also. I believe Radical has given explanations to clarify why it "seems " he speaks in literal terms .Most CC responses take his literal quotes and make them rule over any figurative writings, almost denying them, as in an either /or paradigm. But again ,individuals are better qualified to answer for themselves . Did you read the quotes of Augustine that depict figurative eating ?
John 6 has to do with the Real Presence of our Savior, in Spirit and Flesh and Blood.
Not if read the whole thing .Your quotes are from the “3rd round on” in the discourse .None of your quotes would have happened if in all the verses up to 38 ( round 1) the Jews /disciples really believed that Jesus was the Messiah. None of them would have been necessary. Just like when Peter responded properly nothing else was said by Jesus and it ended the discourse, and Peter says nothing about “eating”.
If you do not believe in consuming the true flesh and true blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood-----in order to have life in you----eternal life----and be raised up on the last day?
The Last Supper tells us why we must truly eat and drink of Him, for it is the literal propitiation of this new covenant. Belief, given by the Father, in our first Creed is how we literally, spiritually truly eat The “Word”. This is another conundrum for RP, that others truly believe this Creed, have eternal life, are indwelt by His Spirit, have true communion with the Father, and Son and Holy Spirit and bear fruit, all without RP Remembrance/Communion.
 
Welcome back. You fail to address the beginning of the discourse, where there is salvation without any “eating” except figurative, by simply believing that Jesus is the Messiah (pretty much what Peter confessed). You also have people not believing that ,from the beginning , before any true eating verses. So you have oneness with Christ by faith before any true eating verses and separation also.
Yes, believing is a part of salvation, but belief is not all that is required. Otherwise, Jesus would have no need to continue beyond John 6:40.
[Glad we agree .Did you notice the metaphor was with eating the “word” ? Augustine says Peter ate the “word” of Jesus ,-“You have the words of life”. Peter did not say you have “the flesh of life”. Anyways, interesting the metaphors with ingesting the “word”.
Notice how Jesus answered the question: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So 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. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
. . .Augustine says Peter ate the “word” of Jesus ,-“You have the words of life”. Peter did not say you have “the flesh of life”. Anyways, interesting the metaphors with ingesting the “word”.
St. Augustine said: “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.” -“Sermons”, [227, 21]
Yes, good point on another metaphor .Too bad we receive no such explanation for John 6 .Some say it clicked at the last supper(for the apostles) .Others said not even then. I would say the figurative is implied and need not explaining because of the context of John 6 and the LS fit and sealed the deal for the apostles. The Remembrance was quite SPECIAL to the apostles, without any RP. They were there at the LS, and for the rest of there life really remembered it like no one else could . Remember how some recognized Jesus in the way He broke bread (nothing to do with RP) ?
We do receive an explanation. You are just ignoring it. John 6:52-58 is the explanation and the answer to the question: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
. . . .Not if read the whole thing .Your quotes are from the “3rd round on” in the discourse .None of your quotes would have happened if in all the verses up to 38 ( round 1) the Jews /disciples really believed that Jesus was the Messiah. None of them would have been necessary. Just like when Peter responded properly nothing else was said by Jesus and it ended the discourse, and Peter says nothing about “eating”.
You are making assumptions here, David. He explained consuming his body and blood to both believers and those still questioning him.
The Last Supper tells us why we must truly eat and drink of Him, for it is the literal propitiation of this new covenant. Belief, given by the Father, in our first Creed is how we literally, spiritually truly eat The “Word”. This is another conundrum for RP, that others truly believe this Creed, have eternal life, are indwelt by His Spirit, have true communion with the Father, and Son and Holy Spirit and bear fruit, all without RP Remembrance/Communion.
You are rewriting Scripture. Where in the N.T. does it say we are to “truly eat” or “truly eat the Word”; and where does it say “truly eating the Word” fulfills the requirement to eat the body of Christ and drink His Blood?

Once again, if you do not believe in consuming the true flesh and true blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood-----in order to have life in you----eternal life----and be raised up on the last day?

Peace, 🙂
Anna
 
Yes, believing is a part of salvation, but belief is not all that is required. Otherwise, Jesus would have no need to continue beyond John 6:40.

Well agreed that belief and salvation is the first part of discourse but we stray to say faith is "part " of salvation hence the continuation of the discourse. I understand, however, from your point of view. Apparently you stil think the disciples(departing ones and one traitor) believed upto this point. I have stressed, and so did Jesus, THEY DID NOT BELIEVE, FROM THE BEGINNING. They did NOT have saving faith .They were NOT drawn by the Father. That is why the discourse continues, putting a magnifying glass on this problem of disciples not believing . Any good rabbi would deal with this quickly and firmly. Jesus was NOT speaking to believers to say , “Oh, here is what else you must do”. They were not even on board yet ! …to be cont…thanks
 
Well agreed that belief and salvation is the first part of discourse but we stray to say faith is "part " of salvation hence the continuation of the discourse. I understand, however, from your point of view. Apparently you stil think the disciples(departing ones and one traitor) believed upto this point. I have stressed, and so did Jesus, THEY DID NOT BELIEVE, FROM THE BEGINNING. They did NOT have saving faith .They were NOT drawn by the Father. That is why the discourse continues, putting a magnifying glass on this problem of disciples not believing . Any good rabbi would deal with this quickly and firmly. Jesus was NOT speaking to believers to say , “Oh, here is what else you must do”. They were not even on board yet ! …to be cont…thanks
David,
I appreciate your response, but you are not dealing with the specific issue of consuming the body and blood of Christ as true food and true drink. You haven’t answered the issues and questions in my last post.

You could start with what you believe “true food” and “true drink” means. Did Jesus not mean what He said?

Peace,
Anna
 
David,
I appreciate your response, but you are not dealing with the specific issue of consuming the body and blood of Christ as true food and true drink. You haven’t answered the issues and questions in my last post.

You could start with what you believe “true food” and “true drink” means. Did Jesus not mean what He said?

Peace,
Anna
Real fast 2 minutes left to my break .did answer .I eat by faith ,spiritually .That is why I said belief in the things in the Creed.That is why Jesus said if I beleieve He is from heaven He will raise me up in last day (John 6 before verse 40,before any eating.
 
David,
I appreciate your response, but you are not dealing with the specific issue of consuming the body and blood of Christ as true food and true drink. You haven’t answered the issues and questions in my last post.

You could start with what you believe “true food” and “true drink” means. Did Jesus not mean what He said?

Peace,
Anna
Real fast 2 minutes left to my break .did answer .I eat by faith ,spiritually .
What do you “eat by faith, spiritually?”

And—where does John 6 say one must “eat by faith, spiritually?”
That is why I said belief in the things in the Creed.That is why Jesus said if I beleieve He is from heaven He will raise me up in last day (John 6 before verse 40,before any eating.
But you can’t just stop at verse 40, and leave out the commandment to eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood—the “true food” and “true drink.”

How do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood? How do you consume His body as true food and His blood as ***true ***drink?

Anna
 
May I jump in and ask one silly question on John 6:53

The text:
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 yourself.
In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…
 
One more question

John 6:35
I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger and He who believes in Me shall never thirst.
John 6:40
For this is the will of My father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life and I myself will raise him up on the last day
John 6:47
Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life
Do these Scriptures relate to the Eucharist? If so how?

How do you think the audience listening to Jesus speak these words would have understood them at the time?
 
May I jump in and ask one silly question on John 6:53

The text:

…Did I miss any…
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 yourself

I’d break it down differently…as in:

The requirement to eat and drink referred to in that verse is:

A. Done only at the Eucharist and :
  1. requires a real bodily presence which can only be achieved through consecration by someone with apostolic succession (or some other thing)
  2. requires a real bodily presence which can achieved w/o apostolic succession, but requires the participant to believe and understand that a real bodily presence is involved.
  3. does not involve a real bodily presence, but requires the ritual action.
B. Not done at the Eucharist and:
Code:
1) requires a cannibalistic consumption of Christ's actual flesh (I don't think this possibility was ever given any serious consideration)

 2) the eating/drinking requirement is fulfilled in this figurative manner *
C. Done both at the Eucharist and apart from the Eucharist and:
Code:
1) the eating/drinking requirement is fulfilled in this figurative manner *
if a real bodily presence (RBP) is established in the rest of scripture, then it would seem to me that either A.1 or A.2 would have to be right…otherwise, what would be the purpose of a RBP?
 
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 yourself

I’d break it down differently…as in:

The requirement to eat and drink referred to in that verse is:

A. Done only at the Eucharist and :
  1. requires a real bodily presence which can only be achieved through consecration by someone with apostolic succession (or some other thing)
  2. requires a real bodily presence which can achieved w/o apostolic succession, but requires the participant to believe and understand that a real bodily presence is involved.
  3. does not involve a real bodily presence, but requires the ritual action.
B. Not done at the Eucharist and:
Code:
1) requires a cannibalistic consumption of Christ's actual flesh (I don't think this possibility was ever given any serious consideration)

 2) the eating/drinking requirement is fulfilled in this figurative manner *
C. Done both at the Eucharist and apart from the Eucharist and:
Code:
1) the eating/drinking requirement is fulfilled in this figurative manner *
if a real bodily presence (RBP) is established in the rest of scripture, then it would seem to me that either A.1 or A.2 would have to be right…otherwise, what would be the purpose of a RBP?
I think the difference between yours and mine is that the focus of yous is “eat and drink” while my questions focus on “have no life in yourselves”…hence the different organizationd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top