Literal or Symbolic?...

[Anna_Scott]

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.

Hi AP,

I understand why you are asking these questions; but I think the scope is too broad for one thread. The understanding of whether eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ is literal or symbolic is probably sufficient for one thread.

Otherwise, we get into the whole valid orders issue (which we have commented on in a limited way here), which leads to the issue of whether the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox are the only ones who hold “valid orders” through Apostolic Succession and are the only ones who can celebrate a valid Eucharist. This is a huge issue. Valid orders probably needs a thread of its own. What do you think?

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi AP,

I understand why you are asking these questions; but I think the scope is too broad for one thread. The understanding of whether eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ is literal or symbolic is probably sufficient for one thread.

Otherwise, we get into the whole valid orders issue (which we have commented on in a limited way here), which leads to the issue of whether the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox are the only ones who hold “valid orders” through Apostolic Succession and are the only ones who can celebrate a valid Eucharist. This is a huge issue. Valid orders probably needs a thread of its own. What do you think?

Anna

Done. Y’all can table my other silly questions too. A little broader than the “holy orders” issue although that is a part of it…

 

[david_ruiz]

Notice how Jesus answered the question: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

.The "how’ is not answered here . What you are saying is that the John 6 folks knew that in John 20 or so Jesus would have a last supper to show His propitiation in the new covenant and we are to remember Him for that with the bread and cup, and then He would be crucified and resurrect and finally ascend .No, I don’t buy that . John 52-58 is only hyperbole of truly eating and drinking his flesh and blood, for eternal life and for abiding in Him, and nothing about His death, or the LS or new covenant. Again the discourse ended with Peter’s confession of faith, not in admitting any understanding of RP eating.

You are making assumptions here, David. He explained consuming his body and blood to both believers and those still questioning him.

Not assumptions but evidences. You admit yourself that salvation thru faith is in verses up to 40 (no eating), but digress with claiming more is required. Is it ? Since the fall we are looking for things to do to please God .He says they (things we do) are stench in His nostrils. He says be still (rest). Re-presenting at Mass is not rest, the thanksgiving part is “rest”. He will do it .We remember what He did .I would not put a yolk on faith that requires the work of RP participation, no matter how subtle or “truly” blunt it appears that God instituted this. Yes, intentions are good but…

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?

First thank-you for giving the several scriptures that say, metaphorically, we eat and drink the Word .You are also correct that "truly "is not part of those metaphors, as in John 6. It is true that you won’t find eating the Word fulfills eating His flesh directly in scripture.However, the results -eternal life, resurrection, indwelling or abiding of the Spirit are in scripture ,even in John 6.

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?

Well, if you don’t believe we do it thru faith and Remembrance, there is nothing left but to say it bluntly, that for me flesh availeth nothing if God is not “in” it, and I believe His carbon molecules are not in the elements. For some reason I believe spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh. I am sorry , but the flesh of Jesus was just that, flesh, dust ,like you and I. How could eating that be beneficial ? Does osmosis take place between spirit and flesh ? I don’t think so .Yes, we live in a material world and God uses all things to His glory .But because God moves the wind does not mean the wind has any spiritual essence A clay jar holds water but the clay is still clay even to the molecular level.The clay jar may be sanctified, given a special role, but it is still a clay jar .We are His temple, but we are still carbon molecules and such .They are not spiritualized molecules, at least not on this side of His-story . Jesus flesh did avail us at Calvary, in that it allowed the Father to grant us spiritual life. Beyond that, I do not need His molecules, I need His Spirit . Scripture has oodles to say of reliance on His Spirit but His flesh is limited to john 6 , the LS in gospels and Corinthians. .It is too foreign to me, like holy water or relics,like super molecules. Peter wasn’t super, the spirit in him was. Objects of faith are just objects, but faith and spirit know no bounds. Which flesh of Jesus is in the eucharist , the pre-glorified body of John 6 and the LS, or as He is in heaven now, glorified ? Sorry, just can not see how an atom, an element, chemicals can give me eternal life or a spiritual boost, by their own essence. It is like the garden of eden and the tree of life and it’s fruit .Is there a fruit, a chemical that gave us eternal life , that we are being temporarily denied now ? I don’t think so but scripture alludes to it. God is Spirit and wants to feed our spirit with His .We do not need His Son’s molecules, we have our own. We need His Spirit. If saints find it in a rite or sacrament, fine .God may honor it because of a faith-led heart, even if in some error. If saints find Him in the “wind” or elsewhere, fine. God may honor it because of a faith led heart, even if in some error.
Perfection and knowledge of all things is His goal for us. Alleluia.

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

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

Metaphor to apostles .Hyperbole to unbelieving followers
Peace,

 

[david_ruiz]

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

How does one participate outside the Body, the Church ?

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

Yes we drink, well some, in faith .You in RP and myself in Remembrance only
Peace,

 

[david_ruiz]

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

 

[dcana]

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.

[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”.

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) ?

Nope, it does not prove anything, but they can be evidences.

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 ?

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”.

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.

Hmm … you talk a lot about symbolic “eating,” where “eating” is not really “eating” in the sense of taking in food, chewing it, and swallowing it, but other things - “believing on the word, etc.” I’ve got a simple question for you. At the Last Supper, when Jesus held up the bread and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my Body,” did He not give them that “bread” and did they not eat it? Or did He say to take it, but He didn’t actually give it to them? Or did He give it to them, but they disobeyed Him and stuck it in their pockets, threw it on the floor, or just left it on the table? When He said, “Take this, all of you and drink it. This is my Blood,” did the Apostles actually drink from the cup or not? BTW, this question isn’t meant to “prove” anything.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hmm … you talk a lot about symbolic “eating,” where “eating” is not really “eating” in the sense of taking in food, chewing it, and swallowing it, but other things - “believing on the word, etc.” I’ve got a simple question for you. At the Last Supper, when Jesus held up the bread and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my Body,” did He not give them that “bread” and did they not eat it? Or did He say to take it, but He didn’t actually give it to them? Or did He give it to them, but they disobeyed Him and stuck it in their pockets, threw it on the floor, or just left it on the table? When He said, “Take this, all of you and drink it. This is my Blood,” did the Apostles actually drink from the cup or not? BTW, this question isn’t meant to “prove” anything.

And which body do you partake of , His fleshly Adamic body .like yours and mine ,or His glorified body , after the resurrection and is now in heaven ? Anyways ,you are also eating a temple, a shepherd, a gate, and a vine, the Greek alphabet ,and last but least light material ,quite literally right ? Anyways , I understand your interpretation of our Lord’s words to be quite literal and respect them . Indeed it seems that they can be taken quite literal .Hopefully you understand ,even in disagrement ,the “other” interpretation .Thanks

 

[Anna_Scott]

Done. Y’all can table my other silly questions too. A little broader than the “holy orders” issue although that is a part of it…

AP,
Your questions were not silly. They were well thought out and very appropriate. I can’t get David to acknowledge what Scripture actually says in John Chapter 6 regarding the body and blood of Christ being true food and true drink. We are going round and round. If we add valid orders. . . . . oh my. lol.

But please don’t leave the discussion. I’d love your comments on whether or not the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist is literal or symbolic. I always like hearing from you.

Peace,
Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

AP,
Your questions were not silly. They were well thought out and very appropriate. I can’t get David to acknowledge what Scripture actually says in John Chapter 6 regarding the body and blood of Christ being true food and true drink. We are going round and round. If we add valid orders. . . . . oh my. lol.

But please don’t leave the discussion. I’d love your comments on whether or not the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist is literal or symbolic. I always like hearing from you.

Peace,
Anna

Well since you are asking…in my matrix of possibilities I lean towards 4.
With a touch of 5a…if interpreted to mean not totally sure.

(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).

To me (with apologies to Bill Clinton) it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. It s valid English for it to mean the transitive sense (our normal usage). It is also valid English for it to mean represents.

But from studying history I find no evidence that the earliest church felt compelled to insist that it means represents. So that is enough to lean me towards 4.

I do have disconnects interpreting John 6 as relating to the Eucharist – while at the same time I have not eliminated it as being possible. These are in the other thread.

 

[dcana]

And which body do you partake of , His fleshly Adamic body .like yours and mine ,or His glorified body , after the resurrection and is now in heaven ? Anyways ,you are also eating a temple, a shepherd, a gate, and a vine, the Greek alphabet ,and last but least light material ,quite literally right ? Anyways , I understand your interpretation of our Lord’s words to be quite literal and respect them . Indeed it seems that they can be taken quite literal .Hopefully you understand ,even in disagrement ,the “other” interpretation .Thanks

All of this is totally irrelevant to my question.

Please answer the question.

 

[dcana]

:compcoff:

 

[JonNC]

=Anna Scott;8473099]Hi Jon,

I always appreciate your posts.

Thanks, Anna. Likewise.

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

I’d like to think that, but I feel yours is an overstatement. What he is saying, ISTM, is that clearly it is not a nothing, that it is a sacramental act, and that Christ is truly present . I don’t believe he would claimit to be “body, blood, soul and divinity”. Certainly, though, it is a forward step in a more mutual recognition of our clergy.

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?

Of course not. There was a time when I was ELCA I often attending a local Episcopal Church. No doubt of the real presence there, either. But, each side here must keep up with appearances. That said, it often seems our leaders are closer to unity than the laity.

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

Agreed.

Peace,

And also with you,
Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Hmm … you talk a lot about symbolic “eating,” where “eating” is not really “eating” in the sense of taking in food, chewing it, and swallowing it, but other things - “believing on the word, etc.” I’ve got a simple question for you. At the Last Supper, when Jesus held up the bread and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my Body,” did He not give them that “bread” and did they not eat it? Or did He say to take it, but He didn’t actually give it to them? Or did He give it to them, but they disobeyed Him and stuck it in their pockets, threw it on the floor, or just left it on the table? When He said, “Take this, all of you and drink it. This is my Blood,” did the Apostles actually drink from the cup or not? BTW, this question isn’t meant to “prove” anything.

I will answers your question, which is more rhetorical . I like your being succint ,even hyperbolic. It reminds me of Jesus when dealing with unbelievers, in John 6. And the answer is…"and they did eat (the bread) …and they all drank of it (the cup). Mark 14:22, 23 . “Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (vs 25). So Jesus blesses the wine ,they drink, and says it is His shed blood for the new testament ,and says He will drink wine no more for awhile .To me He is reassuring them of several things, one of them being the obvious , the cup is still wine. Of course you can say that fits transubstantiation, that is the wine remains wine while still being His blood. Again, my view is that this is totally un-Jewish, the literal eating/drinking. If you want to be different turn the other cheek, love your enemy, let the greater serve etc. .That is different . Eating human blood was foreign to Jews ,something pagan. Jews were not novices however, with blood and sacrifices, just like the pagans.There was a holiness to shedding blood, just as there was with Jesus announcing the shedding of His blood at the LS, and drinking “the cup” was representative of that .I understand CC interpretation , but find it too simple, apart from Jewish facts and their culture of salvation, that incarnated the Christ .It is interesting that as the Christian Church became less Jewish, even anti -Jewish, that this simplistic interpretation came to be and grew stronger.

 

[dcana]

I will answers your question, which is more rhetorical

My question is not rhetorical at all.

I like your being succint ,even hyperbolic. It reminds me of Jesus when dealing with unbelievers, in John 6.

Hyperbolic? How so?

As far as I’m concerned, you are an unbeliever. You, in effect, walk away from Jesus, as far as His teaching on the Eucharist goes, because the saying is too hard. So I say to you, “Do not be unbelieving, but believe.” But let’s not get sidetracked on this. Just curious … did you ever believe when you were a Catholic?

And the answer is…"and they did eat (the bread) …and they all drank of it (the cup). Mark 14:22, 23 .

I’m not sure what Bible translation you are using here. I looked at the KJV and RSV and they say nothing about them eating the “bread.”

“Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (vs 25). So Jesus blesses the wine ,they drink, and says it is His shed blood for the new testament ,and says He will drink wine no more for awhile .To me He is reassuring them of several things, one of them being the obvious , the cup is still wine. Of course you can say that fits transubstantiation, that is the wine remains wine while still being His blood. Again, my view is that this is totally un-Jewish, the literal eating/drinking. If you want to be different turn the other cheek, love your enemy, let the greater serve etc. .That is different . Eating human blood was foreign to Jews ,something pagan. Jews were not novices however, with blood and sacrifices, just like the pagans.There was a holiness to shedding blood, just as there was with Jesus announcing the shedding of His blood at the LS, and drinking “the cup” was representative of that .I understand CC interpretation , but find it too simple, apart from Jewish facts and their culture of salvation, that incarnated the Christ .It is interesting that as the Christian Church became less Jewish, even anti -Jewish, that this simplistic interpretation came to be and grew stronger.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[dcana]

My question is simple. A “yes” or “no” is all it takes to answer it. Was there any eating and drinking going on at the Last Supper? It would certainly be an odd “supper” if no one did any eating or drinking at it. Did the Apostles eat what I would refer to as “bread,” and what you would refer to as simply bread and did they drink what I would call “wine” and you wine, that night before He was crucified?

 

[david_ruiz]

“The language in which Wycliff (1360’s)denounced transubstantiation anticipated that of the Protestant reformers: it is a “blasphemous folly”, a “deceit”, which “despoils the people and leads them to commit idolatry”; philosophically it is nonsense, since it presupposes the possibility of an accident existing without its substance; it overthrows the very nature of a sacrament. Yet the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, for Christ himself says so (Fasc. Zizan. p. 115); we do not, however, corporeally touch and break the Lord’s body, which is present only sacramentaliter, spiritualiter et virtualiter – as the soul is present in the body. The real presence is not denied; what Wycliffe “dares not affirm” is that the bread is after consecration “essentially, substantially, corporeally and identically” the body of Christ. His doctrine, which was by no means always consistent or clear, would thus seem to approximate closely to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, as distinguished from the Zwinglian teaching accepted in the xxviii. Article of Religion of the Church of England, that “the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”” from nndb .com
Was trying to find his writings and came across this. .It is also noted that Wycliffe read Augustine with much admiration, so much so that I read one of his nicknames had something to do with Augustine.

 

[dcana]

“The language in which Wycliff (1360’s)denounced transubstantiation anticipated that of the Protestant reformers: it is a “blasphemous folly”, a “deceit”, which “despoils the people and leads them to commit idolatry”; philosophically it is nonsense, since it presupposes the possibility of an accident existing without its substance; it overthrows the very nature of a sacrament. Yet the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, for Christ himself says so (Fasc. Zizan. p. 115); we do not, however, corporeally touch and break the Lord’s body, which is present only sacramentaliter, spiritualiter et virtualiter – as the soul is present in the body. The real presence is not denied; what Wycliffe “dares not affirm” is that the bread is after consecration “essentially, substantially, corporeally and identically” the body of Christ. His doctrine, which was by no means always consistent or clear, would thus seem to approximate closely to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, as distinguished from the Zwinglian teaching accepted in the xxviii. Article of Religion of the Church of England, that “the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”” from nndb .com
Was trying to find his writings and came across this. .It is also noted that Wycliffe read Augustine with much admiration, so much so that I read one of his nicknames had something to do with Augustine.

While this is very interesting, it is irrelevant. Yes or no?

 

[dcana]

Are you really so dead-set against the very plain words of Jesus that you will not even answer? Well, I take that back. It is only partially true. You quoted a verse of Scripture that said that they drank of the cup, so presumably your answer to the second question is “yes.” How about the first part of the question? Maybe you want to ask me a question. Shoot. I’ll give it a go. And then you can answer mine.

 

[david_ruiz]

My question is not rhetorical at all.