Literal or Symbolic?...

[dcana]

Many times the “presider” will say who should participate, or to encourage the worthily participation, that is are you saved, and are you in good standing in the body, with the Body of Christ .That is, are you supposed to get right with anyone .Then the words of remembrance are said , “On the night that he was betrayed He took the bread …” Yes He says, " take , eat: this is my body broken for you: do this in remembrance of me."
Then the full “cup” statement. We celebrate once a month , with broken matzo crackers and grape juice (in an earlier post "wine’ was said to be anywhere from grape juice with no fermentation to full fermentation and quite alcoholic) ,as Jesus said “fruit of the vine.”

What sort of church do you attend, if I may ask?

You know I’m going to ask you this:
Why do you only have communion once a month? You do believe that the nascent Church of the first generation of Christians was “pure and undefiled by the traditions of men that would come later” and that they worshiped God, if anybody ever worshiped Him so, in “Spirit and Truth,” don’t you? And they gathered to break bread on the Lord’s Day, once a week. So why don’t you? What would you say about a Christian church that never “does this in memory of Him,” ever?

Come on now, you know that Jesus used wine and not grape juice. The Jews drank wine then and drink wine today at the Passover seder, not grape juice. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that they fermented all the “fruit of the vine” into wine and never used grape juice as a beverage. So, why don’t you? Would you admit that it is at least more likely that He used wine and not grape juice? If so, why wouldn’t you also use wine if you want to be biblical? Where is the post that explains that “wine” can refer not to wine but grape juice? If it is fermented, it’s wine - it doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or 15% alcohol.

Heard it this past Sunday from a visiting preacher. It is very dualistic, but i think biblically sound . Paul is very specific to his dual nature , “Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver from the body of this death ? for I do that which I would not ,and that which I would not I do. Thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord”. He also says that in His flesh dwelleth no good thing. “I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is my members. So with my mind (inward man, I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin”. Romans 7 You seem to say almost the same thing with your spiritual life, you know, new life , born again, all things new. I think the more you detest your old man, the more you see it as depraved and with nothing good in it ,the more you will appreciate the grace of salvation-the more forgiven the more love, for the forgiver, Christ. It also leads to full reliance on His working for you, at Calvary (justification) ,and continuing on in your new life (sanctification). It is two natures indeed, diametrically opposed. Our flesh is at enmity with God. The old man understands not the things of God. The old must be put to death - no better rest than that, from self righteous works.

Very good.

That is why we eucharist -give thanksgiving, for the rest it represents .The symbol of unleavened bread in OT passover was for the reminder and goal for purity. Jesus fulfills that perfect purity, hence He chose not the Lamb to be representative element (even though he is the Lamb also) but the bread-unleavened I have been saying figurative (metaphor) is using an earthly reality to depict a spiritual reality.

Not so good. The Jews were saved from the destruction that came upon all Egypt on that first Passover by the blood of the slaughtered lamb, which they put on their doorposts. They then all ate the lamb, just as we eat the true Lamb, Jesus Christ: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” It does not follow that because Jesus “fulfills that perfect purity” He chose something else for us to eat. He is “that perfect purity” and we eat Him, the Lamb, who is the perfect food to purify our soul. Bread does nothing for us, but His flesh is “true food” and to the one who eats it He says He will give eternal life. It seems to me like you are using your own theories to dance around the plain sense of Scripture and to support your belief that when Jesus said, “This is my Body,” what He really means is that “This is not my Body, but only a piece of bread that symbolizes my Body.” Whatever happened to “Speak where the Scriptures speak, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent?” Here the Scriptures speak: “This is my Body.” Here the Scriptures are silent: “This is not really my Body but a metaphor of purity and holiness and of how you need to eat of me by reading the Bible.” Take your pick.

I,ll have to get back on your analogy of the" people mover’/escalator, which I also figuratively used on some earlier post.

Please, don’t bother.

 

[dcana]

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison at all! The wine at Cana was really and truly wine; it did not look or feel or taste like the water it once was. No one doubts that God can turn wine into blood, the question is whether He would do so without changing the “accidents” as well.

If God chose not to leave the accidents of bread and instead changed them into the accidents of the substance that actually exists in the Holy Eucharist, then where would faith be? It wouldn’t be necessary, or even possible, really, to have faith in Jesus’ words. If people could see with their eyes the changing of the appearance of bread and wine into the appearance of flesh and blood, how would faith fit into this? All would know just by using their sense of sight that God exists and that He is doing this. But this would not be consistent (to say the least) with the manner in which God has chosen to reveal Himself in His plan of salvation for the human race, namely, by faith: “The just man will live by faith.”

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail;
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing,
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble sense fail.

• St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[GaryTaylor]

Literal meaning of the Eucharist has been taught in the CC from the begining. From the priesthood being handed down to Christ from the OT. To Christ changing the bread into himself as St Augustine stated and all the Doctors of the Church also. And throughout the NT. most in detail with St Paul and St John.

Then is was documented in the early church from St John to the next generation by his student St Ignantius which the CC holds. And its continued from Christ till today. Its performed over 300-Thousand times daily in the CC worldwide. And its existed close to 2000-years.

It continued and exists because it is the truth in the Apostolic Church, and there is no salavation but in your mind without it.

All the Doctors of the Church believed it, lived it and spoke on it. If anyone in the early centurys “didn’t” it was heresy and they were excommunicated.

Since Luther the interpretation has taken on over 300 different versions through Sola Scriptura, which mean nothing to anyone but Protestants.

When Jesus Christ explained this truth He lost many followers who could not accept or understand this “Biblical” truth. He was not speaking symbolic about the Bread and Wine he was speaking literal. Thats why he lost the followers. Thats why He reiterated as many times as he did. Thats why Faith is mentioned 92-times in John.

Life is not coming to you by thinking it will or because a heretic claims it so. Thus…

I am the Bread of LIFE.{Jesus-GOD}

Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are DEAD.

This is the BREAD which comes down from HEAVEN, of a man “MAY” eat thereof and not die.

I AM THE LIVING BREAD which came down from HEAVEN; if any man eat of this BREAD that I will give IS MY FLESH, which I give FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD.

The Jews said how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

JESUS repeated…Verily Verily I say to YOU. EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have NO-LIFE!!!

FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD is DRINK INDEED.

HE THAT EATETH MY FLESH and DRINKETH MY BLOOD …DWELLETH in ME, and I in HIM.

This is that BREAD which came down from HEAVEN: NOT as your fathers did eat manna, and are DEAD: he that EATETH of THIS BREAD SHALL LIVE FOREVER!!!

And many of His disciples had heard this…who can hear this, and left.

Those disciples are YOU that cannot hear this. So you assume you’ll live forever without the Eucharist? Ummm interesting you would think and do contrary to the One Holy Apostolic Church from Christ to the Apostles.

Yes the Bread and Wine is the Literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And has been since the LAST SUPPER till today. What anyone believes. thinks, suggests, or assumes. is not OUR concern it is yours, WE PRAY for YOU! Read carefully what He said about this.

Grace and Mercy

 

[wmscott]

david ruiz;8485551:

Originally Posted by david ruiz
First let me say thank-you for the kind words calling us brothers and sisters .I believe I shall paraphrase Tertullian ,3-4th century brethren and Father, "Let us not suppose that just because God can that He did , but let us surmise from scripture to see whether it is so And there have been many scriptural references provided, you and others just choose to not believe. wm scott

The teacher of the class is either ignorant or disengenuous to the non-RP cause. I highly doubt that the “Priest” who taught this class is ignorant or disingenuous, quite the opposite.wmscott .Of the 1800 posts on this subject that I have been partially privy to (lot of reading) I don’t believe there has been one person saying it is just too “incredible or inconceivable” ,at least if stated by itself , as you have. It insinuates that He can not .It also avoids the real reasons given why it would be incredible/inconceivable interpretation.I am not saying that God cannot, I am saying that many Protestants find that God cannot because of the way they interpret scripture. Which leads to their own brand of theology, which in turn inadvertently places limits on Godwmscott. But thanks to CC for this forum for the oportunity to express the real reasons for differing interpretations.

Scripture has been provided by both sides and we each chose to not believe the other(interpretation) .Your inference is a negative one , yet ironic cause it applies to any “debate”, and we both believe in the same scriptures, just differently .So why not just say that , with no negative connotation ? .I did not say the priest was ignorant /disengenuos.I said he mispotrayed the opposing view ,or at least put it in a negative way,without explanation.The teacher I repsect most is the one who presents his own faith /interpretation arguments/proofs , but can equally present the opposing view’s arguments and proofs. After all that ,if one wants to say the opponents are incredulous, fine. At least he was honest to their faith viewpoint. the"god can not" is also a strange negative way of putting things . What you say can be said of any viewpoint , but what does it avail except put yourself in a better light ,but I say disengenuosly .For instance I could say you are limiting God ,and saying He can not speak figuratively in the eating .He can not .It doesn’t help to say cause of your interpretations you limit God. Again ,why not just say you (others) interpret God /scripture differently ? Truth always puts a limit on possibilities. It is indeed very narrow minded. Alleluia.

Thanks for your response

 

[wmscott]

Hi Wm,
The problem with your point, or that of your classmates, is that Christ did not say “this bread is changed into my body”. He said, This [bread] is my body". It seems that one could also claim that by making Transubstantiation a doctrine, one inadvertantly puts limits on God as well. It says that the substance of the bread must be changed, in order for it to be Christ’s body. Yet Christ nevers says this.

Now, far be it from me to claim that God doesn’t, or better, can’t change the substance of the bread and wine into flesh and blood, leaving only accidents of bread and wine for our senses to observe. That, too, would limit God. I’m just saying Christ didn’t say He does. He simply says that the bread IS His body, and the wine Is His blood. However He makes this happen, it is indeed a mystery.

Jon

Hi Jon, Thanks for your response

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

I read all your replies, and I think we are miles apart in our understanding of John Chapter 6. We aren’t making any progress—we just keep going “round and round.”

Lots going on for me outside the forums. So, I’ll let you continue the discussion with others.

Peace to you from Texas (God’s country.) I’m sure I’ll bump into you again on another thread and we can disagree on another topic.

Anna

OK partner. I’ll leave with a joke .While Busch was president, he was asked about the three “hot” phones in his vacation Texas Ranch office .Two were long distance : one to Moscow and one to Washington, and the third was local, to God. Something like that .Take care Anna Scott of Texas.

 

[david_ruiz]

What sort of church do you attend, if I may ask?

You know I’m going to ask you this:
Why do you only have communion once a month?

You do believe that the nascent Church of the first generation of Christians was “pure and undefiled by the traditions of men that would come later” and that they worshiped God, if anybody ever worshiped Him so, in “Spirit and Truth,” don’t you? And they gathered to break bread on the Lord’s Day, once a week. So why don’t you? What would you say about a Christian church that never “does this in memory of Him,” ever?

 

[david_ruiz]

And many of His disciples had heard this…who can hear this, and left.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Wm,
The problem with your point, or that of your classmates, is that Christ did not say “this bread is changed into my body”. He said, This [bread] is my body". It seems that one could also claim that by making Transubstantiation a doctrine, one inadvertantly puts limits on God as well. It says that the substance of the bread must be changed, in order for it to be Christ’s body. Yet Christ nevers says this.

Now, far be it from me to claim that God doesn’t, or better, can’t change the substance of the bread and wine into flesh and blood, leaving only accidents of bread and wine for our senses to observe. That, too, would limit God. I’m just saying Christ didn’t say He does. He simply says that the bread IS His body, and the wine Is His blood. However He makes this happen, it is indeed a mystery.

Jon

I’ve been away from the forums for a while so I’m jumping in again in the middle of this.

My comment pertains to the highlighted part.

Why would transubstantiation limit God?

In Christian theology, God became Human. I don’t think that there is one that teaches that God becomes bread, that it is God who changes rather than matter that changes.

If the bread does not change substance to Christ then that means Christ becomes bread. Is that more reasonable? Do you think God is changed to bread rather than bread changed to God?

When Christ said this is my Body, was it Christ who changed or was it the bread? There has to have been a change one way or another.

If we say God became bread, are we going to start another doctrine similar to the hypostatic union?

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=benedictus2;8495536]I ]

There has to have been a change one way or another

Only when you put God in a literal box. Welcome back Benedictus

 

[Anna_Scott]

OK partner. I’ll leave with a joke .While Busch was president, he was asked about the three “hot” phones in his vacation Texas Ranch office .Two were long distance : one to Moscow and one to Washington, and the third was local, to God. Something like that .Take care Anna Scott of Texas.

Dave, I think your delivery needs a little work, but you did make me laugh.

Peace to you, David,
Anna

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8495536]I’ve been away from the forums for a while so I’m jumping in again in the middle of this.

Hi Cory,
Welcome back.

My comment pertains to the highlighted part.

Why would transubstantiation limit God?

Because it puts God in a metaphysical box. It says that the bread must be changed in substance. Could not God in some miraculous way do what Christ said, “This [bread] is my body.” ?

In Christian theology, God became Human. I don’t think that there is one that teaches that God becomes bread, that it is God who changes rather than matter that changes.

If the bread does not change substance to Christ then that means Christ becomes bread. Is that more reasonable? Do you think God is changed to bread rather than bread changed to God?

Again, your focus on the mystery is on substance. Is God limited to substance in some way?

When Christ said this is my Body, was it Christ who changed or was it the bread? There has to have been a change one way or another.

this is the limit I am speaking of. Why does it have to be one way or another? God is God.

If we say God became bread, are we going to start another doctrine similar to the hypostatic union?

But even Christ doesn’t say, “I am bread”. I would speculate that our Orthodox friends might say we westerners look at things so legalistically. I think, Cory, that Transubstantiation is a reasonable human expression regarding the mystery. It puts it in terms that we can, in some, ways relate to - substance and accidents. But God is not limited to our perceptions and ways of understanding. To that point: once consecrated, the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood, and regarding the substances of bread and wine, God does with them as He wills. All I know is, I am receiving orally and spiritually His true body and blood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Only when you put God in a literal box. Welcome back Benedictus

That’s what I was trying to say. But I’d much sooner live with the literal box that is Transubstantiation than claim that God cannot, or did not, fulfill Christ’s words, “This IS my body”, which seems, without being disrespectful or argumentative, to me that the symbolic view does. I find the symbolic view to be a much more restrictive box, in terms of what He can and cannot do. I know you don’t see it that way.

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

That’s what I was trying to say. But I’d much sooner live with the literal box that is Transubstantiation than claim that God cannot, or did not, fulfill Christ’s words, “This IS my body”, which seems, without being disrespectful or argumentative, to me that the symbolic view does. I find the symbolic view to be a much more restrictive box, in terms of what He can and cannot do. I know you don’t see it that way.

Jon

Thanks for your “a la Luther response” , but the benefits (effectualness), promises are the same: eternal life, raised the last day, fellowship with God , with this literal faith that his literal flesh and blood is our literal covenant, which we literally remember and give thanks for thru literal symbols. Whew, I am" literalled" out!

 

[david_ruiz]

You are misquoting and misrepresenting the Didache.The Didache says it is God’s Holy Name which tabernacles in our hearts.

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

10:1 And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:
10:2 We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
10:3 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
10:4 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
10:5 but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.
10:6 Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful;
10:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
14:1 And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;
14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;
14:4 {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;
14:5 for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations.}
Sorry I did not quote 100% earlier : I put "he " tabernacles in our hearts instead of “thy holy name”. Not sure why you quibbled cause I at least made it sound like the entirety of diety dwells in us while you -Didache -might seem to be saying only “His holy name” dwells in us.

Secondly,] this is a prayer after communion - after a communion where the author/s would have believed in the Real Presence ( being 1st century Christians).Therefore, we can infer that God’s Holy Name tabernacles in our hearts AFTER Holy Communion, i.e. after partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=benedictus2;8443918]

]This is what Ignatius of Antioch said:

SHORT VERSION
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, ( Literally, “to love.” Some think there is a reference to the agapæ, or love-feasts). that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils…LONG VERSION… They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam,by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to “sift the faith” of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now “worketh in the children of disobedience; from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.
I understand how CC sees RP in2nd paragraph(Eucharist to be the flesh), but I also see it as an answer to gnostics who beleive not in any flesh of Christ ,which seems to be the context , more than flesh in “communion”. It is also not in the longer version ,which bears this out more ,that “they are ashamed of the cross”

 

[benedictus2]

]Only when you put God in a literal box. Welcome back Benedictus

No. Only when God says so. God said the bread is His Body. If the bread is His Body then it is.

Now obviously you don’t believe Him when He said this, and you are free to disagree with the Lord.

I am still too busy but every now and again I take a peek when I get a spare moment. Can’t will till this week is over.

Thanks for the Welcome! I love being able to post.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Cory,
Welcome back.

Because it puts God in a metaphysical box. It says that the bread must be changed in substance. Could not God in some miraculous way do what Christ said, “This [bread] is my body.” ?

Thanks for the welcome. It’s great to be able to post even if only a little at a time.

Okay. So God said This is My Body. If it is His Body, how is this so? Isn’t this the whole point of transubstantiation, that miraculously, the bread is His Body even if it still looks like bread? How is that boxing Him in a metaphysical Box.

Do you think that saying that Christ is consubstantial with the Father puting God in a metaphysical box?

Again, your focus on the mystery is on substance. Is God limited to substance in some way?

We must understand God to have a substance otherwise why would we say that Christ is “consubstantial” with the Father. Why would it be limiting if we say that the substance of the bread is no longer there but now there is only God’s substance? If you want to leave it as mystery that is okay ( the Orthodox leave it at that). But as I have mentioned before God has given us the intellect. Faith will always seek understanding. That is what theologizing is all about. Otherwise, we are left with : Because the Bible said so.

this is the limit I am speaking of. Why does it have to be one way or another? God is God.

What do you mean why does it have to be one way or another? If the bread is His Body then how? Did the break become Him or did He become bread? What other option, rationally is there? So long as we are trying to pierce the mystery then that is what we are left with.

Now as I have said before, you can just say you have no opinion either way and that you just accept that it is and that’s that. And that’s fine.

But once you start thinking about it, then unless you can propose a third option, then these are the only two I can think of.

If it starts off as bread before the consecration then the bread must have been changed during the consecration. So the question arises : How?

But even Christ doesn’t say, “I am bread”.

He said “I am the Bread of Life” and forthwith said that one must eat His Flesh and drink His blood.

I would speculate that our Orthodox friends might say we westerners look at things so legalistically.

And I would say that for fear of falling into another heresy their faith ceased to seek undersanding.

But if we believe Christ’s promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit, then I can completely give assent to this, based on that.

I think, Cory, that Transubstantiation is a reasonable human expression regarding the mystery. It puts it in terms that we can, in some, ways relate to - substance and accidents.

And that is true. But isn’t that what theologizing is all about? Putting mystery into terms that we can understand. How does even one comprehend the Trinity? We can’t. But we try to give a definition as best we can.

We say God is a Person. Someone can say: “Oh really? Have you met God so you can say He is a person?” Are we not boxing God by saying there are three Persons in One God?

All these are our human attempts to grasp a glimmer of that mystery.

There is a story about St Thomas Aquinas when he was writing about this. I lifted this from Fr Barron:

Toward the end of his life, after having struggled to compose a text on the Eucharist, Thomas, in an act of spiritual bravado not in keeping with his quiet nature, hurled his book at the foot of the crucifix, inviting Christ himself to pass judgment. According to the well-known account of this episode, a voice came from the statue of the crucified Jesus announcing that Thomas had written well concerning the sacrament and offering him a reward in recompense for his labors: “What would you have?” the voice asked. “Nil nisi te” (nothing but you), responded the saint.

But God is not limited to our perceptions and ways of understanding.

True. So perhaps we should all just be deists? After all, much of the attributes we give to God are just that - our understanding.

To that point: once consecrated, the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood, and regarding the substances of bread and wine, God does with them as He wills. All I know is, I am receiving orally and spiritually His true body and blood.

Yes, God does with them what He wills. And that is true. But as I have said before, one may leave it at that or one might want to seek understanding. And if we believe Christ’s promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can trust that He guided His Church to this understanding.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks for your “a la Luther response” , but the benefits (effectualness), promises are the same: eternal life, raised the last day, fellowship with God , with this literal faith that his literal flesh and blood is our literal covenant, which we literally remember and give thanks for thru literal symbols. Whew, I am" literalled" out!

No the benefits are not the same. If Christ meant it literally, then you are missing out on the promise. And you are, right now missing out on the promise because at your Church it really and truly is just bread.

If we understand it literally but Christ meant it figuratively, we don’t miss out. The promise remains.

So really, you are the only one who misses out.

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry I did not quote 100% earlier : I put "he " tabernacles in our hearts instead of “thy holy name”. Not sure why you quibbled cause I at least made it sound like the entirety of diety dwells in us while you -Didache -might seem to be saying only “His holy name” dwells in us.

Therefore you were misrepresenting the Didache. You were trying to give it as support for your argument when it does not. You were hoping to use our oft quoted source against us but that backfired.

Could you please show me Real Presence is shown? Of itself it is not there.

Here is what I wrote:
Secondly, this is a prayer after communion - after a communion where the author/s would have believed in the Real Presence (* being 1st century Christians)***.Therefore, we can infer that God’s Holy Name tabernacles in our hearts AFTER Holy Communion, i.e. after partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. "

First Century Christians believed in the Real Presence. Evidence for that belief have been given numerous times to you by different people here.

The belief in the real presence was never questioned until the 11th century. The only two Apostolic Churches believe in the Real Presence.

What you believe now is a 20th century invention. How you can justify a man made doctrine beats me.

There seems to be a thanksgiving big time , a call to being “right” in the Body " with one another, much like Corinthians 11 that one’s sacrifice may be pure . Granted it says sacrifice, and one can assume it is of praise or a representing. I prefer of thanksgiving because it mentions it quite a bit. What is totally absent is the prayer , sacrificial prayer that is of the CC: “Pray my brothers and sisters that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Almighty father”, with response: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”. “and so we bring you these gifts. We ask that you make them holy…to become His Body and Blood”.

So you think because the Didache did not mention it then it was not done?

The Didache is not the be-all and end-all of the origin of Christian worship. There are other texts where the the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) developed from.

Here is a link if you want more info.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm