Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

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.

I know you are busy but could you show me where I am missing out on the benefits of Rp communion vs spiritual communion ? That is show me where the faith promises are negated ;eternal life,raised in the last day, fellowship with the Father ? Another words ,show me where belief in the Apostles creed is not enough.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=benedictus2;8499432]erefore 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. My goodness you are in a hurry for you have not shown how it backfired Are you syaing he inhabits us in name only ? Then I am wrong.

Here is what I wroteISecondly, this is a prayer after communion - after a communion where the author/s would have believed in the Real Presence

You totally failed to show The Didache and real presence .It does show His name tabernacling in us ,yes, after communion,.It is you assumption that it is due to the rites effectualness and not something symboilc due to an earleir indwelling due to regenaretion]

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8499406]Thanks for the welcome. It’s great to be able to post even if only a little at a time.

And I always enjoy and benefit from you knowledge and faith.

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.

Yes, it is the whole point of Transubstantiation, a way to express what we know to be His body, a way to express the true mystery that Christ takes mere bread, says it is His body, and it is indeed His body. If this is all The CC means, then it does not. And this is all Lutherans mean by Sacramental Union - a way to express this truth we agree on.

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

Are we, by referring to the persons of the Trinity saying that there is somehow a change?
I don’t believe so. God the Father is not somehow changed into God the Son.

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.

Well, because Christ said so is good enough, as John of Damascus says: “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”. Beyond that, I agree with your point regarding theologizing.

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.

The option is that Christ says the bread is His body. Therefore, the bread is not mere bread, but is instead His body.

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?

The how, Cory, isn’t answered. Just like in your reference to the Trinity, the how isn’t answered there, either. You and I accept both on faith.

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

The implication becomes, read this way, that Christ becomes bread. Certainly, John 6 predicts the literal presence, but it is in His words “This is my body” that we recognize that the bread is His body.

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

I can’t say I can speak for them about this.

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.

And on this we entirely agree.

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.

Again, we agree.

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.

A beautiful expression of faith.

continued

 

[JonNC]

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

Of course not, but if I can see your expression of the RP as just that, an attempt to understand, then can you see ours in the same light?
It seems in some of the dialogues, this is more and more the case.

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.

Has the Spirit also guided the Orthodox in their understanding? I would say yes, and ours too. And the foundational understanding is this, that on the night in which He was betrayed, He took bread, broke it, and gave to them saying, “Take eat, this is my body”…

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

New Advent: as per Benedictus web site:In the first century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ’s direction and doing as He had done the night before He died. There were the bread and wine brought up at the Offertory and consecrated by the words of Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Ghost; the bread was broken and Communion was given to the faithful…St. Justin Martyr (died c. 167) spent part of his life at Rome and died there. It is possible that his “First Apology” was written in that city (Bardenhewer, Altkirchl. Litt., I, 206), and that the liturgy he describes in it. Then follows the kiss of peace, and “he who presides over the brethren” is given bread and a cup of wine and water, having received which he gives thanks to God, celebrates the Eucharist, and all the people answer “Amen.” The deacons then give out Holy Communion… Here is found the outline of our liturgy: the Preface (giving thanks), to which may be added from I Clement the Sanctus, a celebration of the Eucharist, not described, but which contains the words of Institution (chapter 66, “by His prayer”), and which corresponds to our Canon, and the final Amen that still keeps its place at the end of the Eucharistic prayer…The first great turning point in the history of the Roman Canon is the exclusive use of the Latin language. Latin had been used side by side with Greek, apparently for some time. It occurs first as a Christian language, not in Rome, but in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), So apparently the Didache, Justin Martyr and Clement provide insight and guidlines for the liturgy .I find nothing that could not be “protestant” .That is there is no invocation for changing the bread and wine into His body/blood ( other than repeating Christs words-I say in Remembrance , you say in RP). There seems to be not indication that of an offering per se, except that of thanksgiving. The next big change came 3rd century with Latin, and I am not sure if the shift had already occurred to an offering a la Abel /Abraham and and asking for conversion of the elements. Anyways, pretty sure from this reading it did NOT happen in first hundred years of the Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ignatius letter to Philedelphia Chapter IV.—Have but one Eucharist, etc.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of His blood; one altar. Letter to Smyrna- Some ignorantly deny Him;- Chapter IV.—Beware of these heretics.(Docetists)

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with;For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.=long version. 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.=short version. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death…I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ…Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise…The context is fighting heresy of those who said Christ died not in the flesh .The Docetists said Christ seemed to die but it was someone else in his place. Ignatius replies that Docetists “seem” to be Christian. Context,context,context .For sure, if like the short version -the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ" by itself, it is understandable ,as you also take the John 6 and Last Supper words literal , apart from any larger context…Last but not least, most scholars still place these writings almost 100 years after Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

In contrast with Radbertus’ view, Ratramnus denied that the bread and wine become the historical body of Christ that was crucified and raised and now sits at the right hand of God. Ratramnus writes: “By the authority of this most learned man [Ambrose] we teach that a great difference separates the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood which he shed from his side while hanging on the cross, from this body which daily in the mystery of Christ’s Passion is celebrated by the faithful, and from that blood also which is taken into the mouth of the faithful to be the mystery of that blood by which the whole world was redeemed”…This took place in 9th century both were monks. I have not read Ambrose, but apparently one could study him and side with Augustine and not CC transubstantiation .There were other contemporaries who held Ratranmus’s view (Erigena,Maur,Gottscalk) . Some hold that it was not a big controversy, as evidenced that it was not neccesary to make a ruling on it for another 400 years

 

[awantz]

Was Jesus a spirit or was Jesus a real person?

He was both.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, it is the whole point of Transubstantiation, a way to express what we know to be His body, a way to express the true mystery that Christ takes mere bread, says it is His body, and it is indeed His body. If this is all The CC means, then it does not. And this is all Lutherans mean by Sacramental Union - a way to express this truth we agree on.

The question however remains: When the Lutheran speaks of Sacramental Union what do they mean by that? Do they mean that the bread is now his body (i.e. no bread remains)? Or is it a case of Christ being “under” and “in” the bread as Luther put it?

Because if it is, well, that statement (that Christ is in, under the bread) does not mean that it is His Body. In this instance the bread (the substance of the bread remains, but Christ co-exists in the bread and along with the bread. And this is how the other Lutheran (can’t remember his name) explained it.

Your understanding is not Lutheran but rather Orthodox: it is His Body and you leave it at that.

Are we, by referring to the persons of the Trinity saying that there is somehow a change?
I don’t believe so. God the Father is not somehow changed into God the Son.

No but your quibble is not so much with the change but with the word “substance”. If we can use the word “substance” in defining the Trinity then why is it not applicable when explaining what happens at the Eucharist?

And if there is no change in the substance of the bread, then the bread remains bread. How can we then say it is no longer bread but Jesus Christ?

Well, because Christ said so is good enough, as John of Damascus says: “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”. Beyond that, I agree with your point regarding theologizing.

And as I said before, if people are happy to leave it at that then that is good. But some minds enquire. That is how we ended up with Berengarius. God gave us the intellectual faculty and at some point, this is bound to come up.

For some, to say the Bible said so is enough. But people who think would yes, I know but why did the Bible say so? How do we reconcile this with what we know and what is said in the other parts of the Bible?

The option is that Christ says the bread is His body. Therefore, the bread is not mere bread, but is instead His body.

It is wonderful that you understand it that way. But Luther says that Christ is "i"n and “under” the bread and not that the bread is Christ.

The how, Cory, isn’t answered. Just like in your reference to the Trinity, the how isn’t answered there, either. You and I accept both on faith.

That is correct, transubstantiation does not entirely answer the how. But it does explain how something that appears to be bread can possibly be the Lord of heaven and earth.

The how is answered in the Eucharistic prayer itself : by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The implication becomes, read this way, that Christ becomes bread. Certainly, John 6 predicts the literal presence, but it is in His words “This is my body” that we recognize that the bread is His body.

Actually not quite. When He said I a the bread of life, I don’t think that Christ becomes bread. If Christ becomes bread then he is no longer Christ - bread takes over. But saying it the other way around, then Christ takes over.

And transubstantiation agrees with you - the bread is His body

 

[benedictus2]

Of course not, but if I can see your expression of the RP as just that, an attempt to understand, then can you see ours in the same light?
It seems in some of the dialogues, this is more and more the case.

I would say yes and no to this. It is indeed an attempt to understand but not all attempts to understand are equally valid. There are explanations that are false and those that are true.
If there are two opposing explanations, they can’t both be true.

Has the Spirit also guided the Orthodox in their understanding? I would say yes,

Of course He has. But the thing is, the Orthodox has not sought any MORE understanding. It is His Body and that is all and that is it. Finito.

As I have said before, I think it may be due to the fact that the Eastern Church has been beset by heresies from much theologizing in the past.

An Orthodox CAF member said that they abstain from further inquiry for fear that imagination might cloud reason. So I said to him, that this seems to be a case of faith refusing to seek further understanding for fear of the imagination clouding reason.

Since Christ promised us the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters pertaining to truth, there is no need to fear in this regard.

I mean, just think about it. If He said the Church will be guided into truth, and since He is God, that promise must hold true. If not, then it would seem that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church from the time she accepted transubstantiation. And if the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church then, how sure are we that He did not do so earlier than that?

I have always maintained that difference is not this or that doctrine but infallibility. Because if this (i.e. infallibility) is true, then it follows that what the Church pronounces is true - with regards this, with regards Mary, with regards confession and all other moral teachings and all other matters of faith.

and ours too.

I am not too sure of this. The Lutheran belief IS consubstantiation (which is in line with Luther’s own belief). You are the first Lutheran I have met who believes that the Bread IS Christ.

I think one day you and I will be in Communion. One day, I think we will say to you: Welcome Home.

And the foundational understanding is this, that on the night in which He was betrayed, He took bread, broke it, and gave to them saying, “Take eat, this is my body”…

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

New Advent: as per Benedictus web site:In the first century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ’s direction and doing as He had done the night before He died. There were the bread and wine brought up at the Offertory and consecrated by the words of Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Ghost; the bread was broken and Communion was given to the faithful…St. Justin Martyr (died c. 167) spent part of his life at Rome and died there. It is possible that his “First Apology” was written in that city (Bardenhewer, Altkirchl. Litt., I, 206), and that the liturgy he describes in it. Then follows the kiss of peace, and “he who presides over the brethren” is given bread and a cup of wine and water, having received which he gives thanks to God, celebrates the Eucharist, and all the people answer “Amen.” The deacons then give out Holy Communion… Here is found the outline of our liturgy: the Preface (giving thanks), to which may be added from I Clement the Sanctus, a celebration of the Eucharist, not described, but which contains the words of Institution (chapter 66, “by His prayer”), and which corresponds to our Canon, and the final Amen that still keeps its place at the end of the Eucharistic prayer…The first great turning point in the history of the Roman Canon is the exclusive use of the Latin language. Latin had been used side by side with Greek, apparently for some time. It occurs first as a Christian language, not in Rome, but in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), So apparently the Didache, Justin Martyr and Clement provide insight and guidlines for the liturgy .I find nothing that could not be “protestant” .That is there is no invocation for changing the bread and wine into His body/blood ( other than repeating Christs words-I say in Remembrance , you say in RP). There seems to be not indication that of an offering per se, except that of thanksgiving. The next big change came 3rd century with Latin, and I am not sure if the shift had already occurred to an offering a la Abel /Abraham and and asking for conversion of the elements. Anyways, pretty sure from this reading it did NOT happen in first hundred years of the Church.

Hi David,

Can I make one request.

Can you break your post into paragraphs?

Also if you are not sure about the quoting sytem, maybe you can just predicate your responses with “My response” so it is easier to find where your thoughts begin and where your quotes end.

My response to your point in red is the highlighted part in blue.

Peace!

Cory

 

[benedictus2]

Ignatius letter to Philedelphia Chapter IV.—Have but one Eucharist, etc.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of His blood; one altar. Letter to Smyrna- Some ignorantly deny Him;- Chapter IV.—Beware of these heretics.(Docetists)

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with;For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.=long version. 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.=short version. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death…I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ…Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise…

David Ruiz: .The context is fighting heresy of those who said Christ died not in the flesh .The Docetists said Christ seemed to die but it was someone else in his place. Ignatius replies that Docetists “seem” to be Christian. Context,context,context .For sure, if like the short version -the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ" by itself, it is understandable ,as you also take the John 6 and Last Supper words literal , apart from any larger context…Last but not least, most scholars still place these writings almost 100 years after Christ.

Where does it say that the text is limited to fighting the docestist? Where does it say that Ignatius did not believe in the Real Presence?

 

[benedictus2]

In contrast with Radbertus’ view, Ratramnus denied that the bread and wine become the historical body of Christ that was crucified and raised and now sits at the right hand of God. Ratramnus writes: “By the authority of this most learned man [Ambrose] we teach that a great difference separates the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood which he shed from his side while hanging on the cross, from this body which daily in the mystery of Christ’s Passion is celebrated by the faithful, and from that blood also which is taken into the mouth of the faithful to be the mystery of that blood by which the whole world was redeemed”…This took place in 9th century both were monks. I have not read Ambrose, but apparently one could study him and side with Augustine and not CC transubstantiation .There were other contemporaries who held Ratranmus’s view (Erigena,Maur,Gottscalk) . Some hold that it was not a big controversy, as evidenced that it was not neccesary to make a ruling on it for another 400 years

Can I ask you what your point is with this response?

 

[benedictus2]

I know you are busy but could you show me where I am missing out on the benefits of Rp communion vs spiritual communion ? That is show me where the faith promises are negated ;eternal life,raised in the last day, fellowship with the Father ? Another words ,show me where belief in the Apostles creed is not enough.

Okay. We say real presence. You say symbolic.

If Christ meant the presence to be literally real, then because you are not participating in what He commanded us to do and therefore you do not get the promise associated with that command.

But if it were meant to be symbolic we still get the promise because we still complied with His command. So either way we win. But you lose if it turns out that Christ meant it to be literal.

It would be like the Isreaelites on the eve of the exodus, thinking that God meant the eating of the lamb to be only symbolic so they ate a symbolic lamb - maybe cut out bread in the shape of a lamb. Would they have complied with God’s insructions? Would they have benefited from the promise

Or suppose they thought that God meant to only symbolically smear the blood of the lamb on the door posts so they made the gesture of splashing red coloured water on the door post. Would they have benefited from the promise to be spared by the angel of death? I somehow don’t think so.

 

[benedictus2]

My goodness you are in a hurry for you have not shown how it backfired Are you syaing he inhabits us in name only ? Then I am wrong.

Okay. You tried to use the didache to show that God tabernacles in our hearts and that is all the 'tabernacling" that the Didache talks about.

I showed you that your claim that this is what the Didache says is wrong. If you are going to use support, then you better check that support first.

You totally failed to show The Didache and real presence .It does show His name tabernacling in us ,yes, after communion,.It is you assumption that it is due to the rites effectualness and not something symboilc due to an earleir indwelling due to regenaretion]

Well of course it is due to the rite’s efficacy or more precisely the rites efficacy at transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Let me re-iterate this. First century Christians believed in the real (not just symbolic) presence of Christ. The symbolic interpretation is a 19th century invention. Therefore, the person/s who wrote the Didache believed in the literal presence and so did all those for whom it was written. There was no other way of believing about the Eucharist at that time. That is why the the Didache did not have to spell it out. It was a given.

 

[benedictus2]

Another words ,show me where belief in the Apostles creed is not enough.

How about you show me that those who framed the Apostles Creed did not believe in the Real Presence?

Also do you believe in the Creed? Do you believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Do you believe in the communion of saints? Do you think one can pray to the saints to ask for their intercession?

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

Can I make one request.

Can you break your post into paragraphs?

Also if you are not sure about the quoting sytem, maybe you can just predicate your responses with “My response” so it is easier to find where your thoughts begin and where your quotes end.

My response to your point in red is the highlighted part in blue.

Peace!

Cory

Words of institution are repeating the Lord’s words at the last supper and invocation by the Holy Ghost is just that .It is not what is said today .

 

[david_ruiz]

Where does it say that the text is limited to fighting the docestist? Where does it say that Ignatius did not believe in the Real Presence?

Nowhere, but “contexts” generally speak for themselves. You are asking for the context to define itself further. I admitted you can find RP there , but in a subtext. Just my opinion. Again , it also depends which version you find more accurate .The long version says nothing of RP but stays true to short version context of all fleshly (incarnate) works of Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

Can I ask you what your point is with this response?

Just remembering in fondness the old days of the Radical /Lyrikal debates on RP and Augustine.I recall one point of why didn’t Augustine rebuke /correct Ambrose for his belief in RP, if indeed Augustine thought it all figurative. It was said Ambrose was definitely an RP man .Have not read a stitch on Ambrose and RP. Apparently one could read him and come away with a different RP than CC RP, according to catholic monk Ratranmus. That is all.

 

[david_ruiz]

Okay. We say real presence. You say symbolic.

If Christ meant the presence to be literally real, then because you are not participating in what He commanded us to do and therefore you do not get the promise associated with that command.

Only in your paradigm where you view literal as higher and symbolic as trite comparatively .Another paradigm would understand that both are quite personal, and spiritual, and intensely meaningful, but that there is a difference in discernment. Yours is not “less” just wrong… We both participate in his command to remember. Your logic fails cause when one is wrong they are wrong, and “miss out” and obey not in truth and spirit- you in RP if it is truly symbolic , and me in figurative , if it is truly literal .

It would be like the Isreaelites on the eve of the exodus, thinking that God meant the eating of the lamb to be only symbolic so they ate a symbolic lamb - maybe cut out bread in the shape of a lamb. Would they have complied with God’s insructions? Would they have benefited from the promise