Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[mercygate]

Doreen:

I didn’t say it is futile, just that it can be misconstrued because, as was the case with me, your people might look to the THING vs. the Savior. That’s not saying God can’t do supernatural things. Of course, I know that He can and does.

For us, of course, the Eucharist is not a THING, it is the Body of Christ. Not an object.

Please speak in English here …my Latin is weak. What are you saying exactly? I really just don’t get the a priori part. Does that mean “out right?” or “outright”?

I apologize. “A priori” means “knowable without experience.” Basically, a conclusion before the fact.

I am not denying anything…I am simply questioning the things that have not been confirmed in my Spirit.

I hadn’t, in my mind, ignored or dismissed the previous verses, but I looked at them in immediate relation to each other.

Example: Right after many of the disciples turned away …Jesus looks to the Twelve and asks them what they think…and the very trusting Peter, says, YOU HAVE THE WORDS of Eternal Life.

This comes directly after Jesus has just said, “The WORDS I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are Life.”

So…it seems to me they are showing each other the understanding that it is Christ who is the WORD of Life.

Would I understand you correctly if I were to say that you believe “Word” is the same as “the written word” or “the words I have spoken as distinct from the person of Christ?”

Maybe John 6 doesn’t make sense in the ‘Catholic’ way unless one keeps the prologue of that Gospel firmly in mind: The Word became flesh . . . For the ancient Church, for the Fathers, and all the way up to the Reformation, “my words” in John 6 meant “my flesh” as in “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The idea that the Eucharist should be understood as anything other than the Flesh of Christ was a novelty introduced in the 16th Century.

. . .I will have to review the chapters and pay close attention to that, but even as I consider it now, it simply points to the idea that Christ IS explaining to those who are still able to listen, that the references to flesh are not to be taken literally… so that’s how I understand that.

And again…that sends us back over to the other topic “can a normal Joe interpret Scripture.” :crying:

Someone – was it on this thread? – said: For professionals only. Do not try this at home without protective equipment.

When a text may bear more than one interpretation – and where the interpretation is critical to faith – the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be dismissed as “opinions of mere men” (whose authority is no greater than my own). The deposit of faith, consistently promulgated from apostolic times, carries the presumption of authority. A personal intuition which contradicts the Apostolic faith is guaranteed to be problematic.

 

[Doreen]

mercygate:

Would I understand you correctly if I were to say that you believe “Word” is the same as “the written word” or “the words I have spoken as distinct from the person of Christ?”

Maybe John 6 doesn’t make sense in the ‘Catholic’ way unless one keeps the prologue of that Gospel firmly in mind: The Word became flesh . . . For the ancient Church, for the Fathers, and all the way up to the Reformation, “my words” in John 6 meant “my flesh” as in “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The idea that the Eucharist should be understood as anything other than the Flesh of Christ was a novelty introduced in the 16th Century.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

9 The true likght that gives light to EVERY man was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I read all these things with the “full armor of God” so that I can take my stand against the devil’s schemes. Eph 6:11

So as I said…it seems to me they are showing each other the understanding that it is Christ who is the WORD of Life.

I don’t know if God commanded us to take the Eucharist as His literal flesh and blood…I know Christ said, “do this in remembrance of me”…but I DO believe I have the fullness of Christ as He has called me out of the darkness into the light. That much I am certain of…and it has not been an a priori experience. It is the conclusion made AFTER the fact of His real living presence in my life and my heart which followed a heart-rending, total submission experience.

 

[Doreen]

St.Eric:

This is true. To build on this: Christ died ONCE and for ALL. This perfect and complete sacrifice of the New Covenant happened one time and is present in time and space on this earth until Christ comes again in Glory. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the participation in this one sacrifice of Christ that is present for All until the second coming. Not that we can add to the sacrifice in any way, for it was done but one time and was perfect, but that that sacrifice is re-presented to us until the final judgement so that we may actively participate in it.

Here’s a new angle for you to consider…you say you are re-presenting the sacrifice, over and over, so that you can actively participate in it…why stay in that ONE place? Didn’t Christ’s sacrifice accomplish anything? Didn’t He say, “It is finished?”

What was He referring to? By His stripes we are healed. These kinds of promises are stated in a way as to confirm something HAS been completed. Why keep the man on the cross all this time? Aren’t we to celebrate the ascension…overcoming death?

Where is the victory? Where’s the HUMAN benefit of transformation?

If we constantly think we have to keep going back to the sacrifice, does that mean we’ll constantly go back to our sin nature, too. Even expecting to! Where’s the renewing of the mind? The new creation in Christ? Aren’t we to be overcomers by faith?

Why would the “New Creation” want to keep going back to square one and not move on to love and spread the news of victory?

Sorry…you asked for more questions. Here they are!

I can see “doing this in remembrance” and showing others the way to new life is “through the cross”…providing it for new believers…as you do at the “first communion”…unfortunately most of those second graders don’t get what they’re doing…

but for those who have believed, doesn’t this express some kind of doubt about whether it truly “is finished?”

Just keep swimming…<><
D.

 

[St.Eric]

Doreen:

Here’s a new angle for you to consider…you say you are re-presenting the sacrifice, over and over, so that you can actively participate in it…why stay in that ONE place? Didn’t Christ’s sacrifice accomplish anything? Didn’t He say, “It is finished?”

What was He referring to? By His stripes we are healed. These kinds of promises are stated in a way as to confirm something HAS been completed. Why keep the man on the cross all this time? Aren’t we to celebrate the ascension…overcoming death?

Where is the victory? Where’s the HUMAN benefit of transformation?

If we constantly think we have to keep going back to the sacrifice, does that mean we’ll constantly go back to our sin nature, too. Even expecting to! Where’s the renewing of the mind? The new creation in Christ? Aren’t we to be overcomers by faith?

Why would the “New Creation” want to keep going back to square one and not move on to love and spread the news of victory?

Sorry…you asked for more questions. Here they are!

I can see “doing this in remembrance” and showing others the way to new life is “through the cross”…providing it for new believers…as you do at the “first communion”…unfortunately most of those second graders don’t get what they’re doing…

but for those who have believed, doesn’t this express some kind of doubt about whether it truly “is finished?”

Just keep swimming…<><
D.

Please refer back to post #221.

We don’t “go back” to the sacrifice. Re-presented may be a poor choice of word. The sacrifice is made present at Mass since the sacrifice exists for all of time unitl he comes in the second coming. “It is finished.” True. This means Christ came to earth and completed the perfect sacrifice. It doesn’t mean the sacrifice ends- the sacrifice continues (it was done once), suspended in time until the second coming, thus all mankind can partake of it. As stated before, Revelations 5:6 shows this to be true- John sees Christ in Heaven appearing as the slain Lamb. Why didn’t John see him as the glorified Christ? Because the sacrifice of the cross, the slaying of the Lamb is PRESENT even after the resurection, even until Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

REV 5:6
Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world.

Yes, by his stripes we are healed; and his flesh and blood gives us life

John 6:54-56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Yes, Christ is the Word and through his Words we are saved and his Words command us to do various things. “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”

 

[St.Eric]

Doreen:

Here’s a new angle for you to consider…you say you are re-presenting the sacrifice, over and over, so that you can actively participate in it…why stay in that ONE place? Didn’t Christ’s sacrifice accomplish anything? Didn’t He say, “It is finished?”

What was He referring to? By His stripes we are healed. These kinds of promises are stated in a way as to confirm something HAS been completed. Why keep the man on the cross all this time? Aren’t we to celebrate the ascension…overcoming death?

Where is the victory? Where’s the HUMAN benefit of transformation?

If we constantly think we have to keep going back to the sacrifice, does that mean we’ll constantly go back to our sin nature, too. D.

Some thoughts came to me this evening while spending some time in contemplation in front of my shrine of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. There is a nice crucifix above the image of the Sacred Heart:

You ask, “why stay in that one place?” Answer: That one place is THE place that wrought salvation for all of mankind. The act of the crucifixtion is the very summit of Christianity- without it, we are not Christians. God could have pronounced from the Heavans that he has meade peace with all of mankind and all are saved hence forth. He didn’t do this. He chose to die for us and the DEATH is that act that achieves the salvation. So, I have to question why we wouldn’t always want to go to that spot- that is the spot or act that carries the most gravity for Christians, Without it, we are nothing.

Your question: “why keep the man on the cross all the time?” We don’t. God does. Refer to the passage in Revelations above, in the previous post. Who did John see? He saw a Lamb looking as if it had been slain. A Lamb that is still on the Cross if you will. Yes, by his stripes we are healed. That is exactly why he is still on the cross, because that act is what saves us.

Your question: “where is the victory?” The victory is on the crucifix. The victory was and is in his death and crucifixtion.

Your question: “Aren’t we to celebrate the ascention? What about overcoming death?” Answer: Yes, we do celebrate the ascention, for" he is the God of the living, not the dead." But the Son’s willfull submission to the Father on the Cross is the crux of Christian salvation: “dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus Christ, come again in glory!”

That’s it. I am out for now. God Bless!

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

Indeed.

I’m glad you agree with me …

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

I think you are onto something here. Despite the fact that your English is excellent (REALLY excellent), these words are loaded with a lot of theological meaning. We have a common expression in English – maybe you use it in French also – “It doesn’t matter an iota.” That comes from the controversy over homoousion versus homoiousion. So Christianity has a long history of needing to clarify meanings in seemingly similar words: renewal, representation. I share your inability for this argumentum to see the difference between renewal and representation.

“Renewal” would appear to claim re-offering the sacrifice.
“Representation” would appear to mean “symbolic.”

So I don’t like either word. If you put a hyphen in representation and make it re-presentation, it is clearer: presenting again to us in time and space the eternal sacrifice which had its time-and-space moment at Calvary but was “from the foundation of the world.” “He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.” (I Pet I:20)

But I still prefer the image of piercing the veil between time and eternity. To my mind it better describes our relationship with God as the Incarnation as offered in this sacrament.

In French Catholics use the word “renouvellement”, that means exactly “renewal”, that’s why I can’t agree with it …
As for re-presentation, for me it’s strange, it’s the first time I’ve heard this ; I am used to thinking about it in terms of representation, something symbolical …

 

[Huguenot]

Dorothy:

I agree with all you have written above. But, I also believe in the great Gift of Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

I don’t …( if it means real presence )…

 

[Huguenot]

Doreen:

Thank you, H. For that confirmation and word of encouragement. I am sorry I get so long-winded in my posts.

I guess I am very passionate in my pursuit of truth.

I am grateful to those on here who are so willing to hash all this out with us. It has brought me to a new level of respect for the Catholics around me. This is a healing of my soul that I know I needed badly, so the Lord is truly at work through all this.

I have two things to share that happened in my quiet time over the past 24 hours…now you challenge me to share them in some “brief” and simple way…

Ugh!! I am a writer by nature…full of words and thoughts. A gift from the Lord, but one that I am sure has its down-side.


Did you say your native language is French?

Have a blessed day, Brother!
D.

Yes, my native language is French, and I live in France : that’s where I post from …
Reading your answer I’ve realized that I’ve made a mistake : I didn’t want to say your posts are “lengthy” ( which would mean boring ) : what I wanted to say is that you really develop your points ( so your posts are “long and interesting”, for me too ! ), which I can’t do because I don’t have the necessary theological vocabulary in English…
Since I’ve read answers to your message, you know I’m a sister and it French I would have written Huguenote, but in English the masculine and feminine form of this word is the same…

In France there is a very small number of Protestants ( about 2% of the population ), that’s why , I think, we don’t have the same relationship with Catholics as in the USA : here the relationship is generally good ( since we live in the “middle of the Catholics” who represent over 80% of the population … ) although we have the same theological differences …

 

[Doreen]

Huguenot:

In France there is a very small number of Protestants ( about 2% of the population ), that’s why , I think, we don’t have the same relationship with Catholics as in the USA : here the relationship is generally good ( since we live in the “middle of the Catholics” who represent over 80% of the population … ) although we have the same theological differences …

Good Morning, Sister!

I have been reading an old book by a Catholic about the arguments for the Catholic (universal) church written in the 1860’s! It is fascinating to realize that these same arguments continue today. And what the man in the book says is much the same as what the folks on here are saying.

I grew up Catholic (by the way, my last name is French and I have always regretted not taking up the language!–ancestors came to US via Canada…not sure where before that, on the paternal side. The maternal side is Dutch.

Having gone through early adulthood and made an incredible mess of my life, then later finding Christ outside of the Catholic church, I am seeking to understand why, if it truly is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, I didn’t truly come to know Christ IN that church.

I have a busy day today…taking my daughter to a birthday party. So gotta run. I am enjoying meeting so many folks on here, and I am learning a lot…I LOVE having the perspective of a French Protestant.

God Bless You!
D.

 

[Alfie]

Malachi4U:

I am no Protestant any longer but… A long time ago, in a land far far away, I too was was a Protestant.:banghead:

Anyway, when we took the Bible out of context. A verse here and a verse there. No context on where they came from. It was easy to believe that grape juice was used by Jesus and it was symbolic only. After all, how could Jesus ferment the grape juice if He didn’t let it sit for years to get the alcohol in it? (Hum??? That one used to stump me till I was Catholic and realized Jesus was God and could do ANYTHING he wanted - even ferment wine. As a Protestant I just assumed Jesus couldn’t make wine from grape juice? )

People work by how they train. Protestants are trained to take verses out of context so they do it naturally and without thought about it. It’s just the nature of the Protestant beast. (beast - is that a pun? )

In John Chapter 6:63 Jesus talks about how the words he used concerning the drinking of his blood and eating of his flesh are spritual in nature. Verse 6:63 says; It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. Earlier in John 6:49 Jesus says that the Jews ate manna but still died. Then he continues by saying that he is the living bread and whoever eats of it will have eternal life and not die. So,why do our bodies physically die if that is really the blood and flesh of Jesus?

 

[Tonks40]

Alfie:

In John Chapter 6:63 Jesus talks about how the words he used concerning the drinking of his blood and eating of his flesh are spritual in nature. Verse 6:63 says; It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. Earlier in John 6:49 Jesus says that the Jews ate manna but still died. Then he continues by saying that he is the living bread and whoever eats of it will have eternal life and not die. So,why do our bodies physically die if that is really the blood and flesh of Jesus?

He’s talking about eternal life here in His Kingdom…not physcial. Says right there in the text. We take the Eucharist in order to receive the promises of eternal life.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

Having gone through early adulthood and made an incredible mess of my life, then later finding Christ outside of the Catholic church, I am seeking to understand why, if it truly is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, I didn’t truly come to know Christ IN that church.

This is not the point.

The point is whether or not what the Catholic Church teaches is true. Not how well it is accepted, or how easily it is known.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a geometry teacher is teaching the Pythagorean theorem. Some students understand it; some don’t. Does the fact that some students do not understand the theorem make it untrue? Or could it be that the teacher didn’t teach it well? Or could it be that some students had not yet reached a level of understanding so that they could grasp it?

Nobody here is saying that you can’t find Christ in Protestantism. Obviously many do! What we’re saying is that you can find Christ more fully in Catholicism. We’re saying Catholicism has the fullness of truth.

BTW, I haven’t seen you give any answers to my questions in post 136 (Feb. 9).

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

In French Catholics use the word “renouvellement”, that means exactly “renewal”, that’s why I can’t agree with it …
As for re-presentation, for me it’s strange, it’s the first time I’ve heard this ; I am used to thinking about it in terms of representation, something symbolical …

As we have been carrying on this dialogue, and I have been fumbling to find an accurate but simple way to make this clear, it occurred to me that we need another hyphen:

re (again) present (in the present). Christ is always is God’s eternal “now.” We are taken into that “present” when we be come present to the eternal sacrifice.

 

[Dorothy]

Doreen wrote:

<<Having gone through early adulthood and made an incredible mess of my life, then later finding Christ outside of the Catholic church, I am seeking to understand why, if it truly is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, I didn’t truly come to know Christ IN that church.>>

From what I gather in your above statement, you were ready for a spiritual change in your life at the time you came to know Christ.
Perhaps if the person or circumstance in which you came to know Christ was in a Catholic setting you would still be a Catholic today, and would have come to more fully understand the truth of the Church’s teachings.

I once met a woman who had this happen to her. She wasn’t thoroughly grounded in her Catholic faith, and a relative from another Christian tradition was very compassionate and kind to her at a time when she needed it, and so it was very easy for her to just step into that Christian tradition. A wonderful woman, by the way, I learned a lot about Christian charity from her.

 

[Doreen]

Dorothy:

Doreen wrote:<<Having gone through early adulthood and made an incredible mess of my life, then later finding Christ outside of the Catholic church, I am seeking to understand why, if it truly is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, I didn’t truly come to know Christ IN that church.>>
DOROTHY WROTE:
From what I gather in your above statement, you were ready for a spiritual change in your life at the time you came to know Christ.
Perhaps if the person or circumstance in which you came to know Christ was in a Catholic setting you would still be a Catholic today, and would have come to more fully understand the truth of the Church’s teachings.

Okay…so this all should go to another thread, I suppose…but since understanding and accepting the Eucharistic teaching is part of understanding and accepting Christ…it sort of relates to this topic.

I would TOTALLY agree with you Dorothy, (that it was "just the timing/readiness) but honestly, I tried to find a sincere walk in the Catholic church…even to the point of having my husband verbalize a commitment to convert so we could marry in my family Catholic church (admitting that was mostly to honor my parents and grandparents wishes for me at the time and to not dishearten them)…

I was trying VERY hard to know Christ in the Catholic church. I went to a TEC (teens encounter Christ) as a young adult, and that was the first time things began to make sense to me.

For those unfamiliar: TEC’s are retreats where on Friday we “die to our sins” on Saturday we “rise” to accept Christ as our leader, and Sunday is “Go day” where we are commissioned to go love and serve the Lord. Those were wonderful experiences for me, but what I learned there wouldn’t stick because I couldn’t share it outside of that experience…there were no young adult fellowship groups to my awareness where I would be held accountable, encouraged, spurred on…

I later served on a TEC team as a group or table leader. It was again wonderful, but again, it didn’t carry over into the “real world” outside the environment of the retreat.

I can’t tell you how much I wanted to leave my sinful life…that is, stop living in the world, being OF the world, but I felt like I was the only one on the planet that had that desire…and so to turn away from the lifestyle that my Catholic friends and family were leading was to turn away from my Catholic friends and family.

I know that isn’t how it is for some of you…but it IS what I experienced. And it wasn’t until I had really made a total mess of things, …and I wanted to have children, but I didn’t want to be a messed-up parent, …I wanted to be a strong Christian person for my child/chilidren…I started to meet people who attended other churches and who actually had peace in their lives. They lived cleanly and they were truly filled with a joy and hope and a peace that I desired so deeply.

I prayed that the Lord would show me how to live for Him, and I prayed for Christian fellowship…and He led my husband and I to two very Spirit-filled, wonderful churches. (two because we moved so we went from one to the other in another town)

We now have an extended family of Christian brothers and sisters, and we are able to live the way we know Christ would have us live.

Some would say we gave up our freedom, but the fact is, we are more FREE than ever before. Free of the guilt and shame of our besetting sins. Not saying we don’t sin at all now, but we don’t fall as we fell before. The Spirit simply won’t allow us to go there.

Anyway, another long-winded explanation. Sorry.

I really wish I could have found Christ in the Catholic church, but I didn’t, and I am really wanting to understand how it can possibly be the Church commissioned by Christ if so many are lost in it…so many are not living Christ-like lives, so many do not KNOW the Lord. They FEAR Him, but they do not KNOW Him.

I know some of you are going to be irritated with me for making these comments, but it’s just what I see around me in this great state of WISCONSIN! (Beer capital of the World!..and probably the state with the most Catholic churches per capita, too…I’m just speculating there, so don’t get miffed it that isn’t accurate.)

Maybe hearing some of this will inspire you to examine your parish fellowship, and consider how you are helping each other to truly live the lives that Christ would have us live.

I am afraid of what some of you will say to all this…because you might think I’m just throwing stones, but I really don’t mean to. I am so, so saddened by the troubles I see…and I am glad that there are obviously many of you that have found Christ in the Catholic church! That discovery has really encouraged me greatly!

D.

 

[Dorothy]

Doreen wrote:

<<I can’t tell you how much I wanted to leave my sinful life…that is, stop living in the world, being OF the world, but I felt like I was the only one on the planet that had that desire…and so to turn away from the lifestyle that my Catholic friends and family were leading was to turn away from my Catholic friends and family.>>

That is unfortunate that you could not find committed Catholics to fellowship with, to be encouraged and inspired by them.

At a young age I found that difficulty as well. It wasn’t till I was in my mid thirties that I realized that I needed to be taking my walk with Jesus on a deeper level. At that time there was available to me various groups within the Church to join and find a challenging level of spiritual maturity to be inspired by. I am going to be 70 this year, and still find great fellowship and spiritual direction in these groups.

The pastor of my church says that he occasionally has lunch with several pastors of other denominations, and they tell him,( and my pastor’s experience also shows this to be true in our parish), that about 30% of their congregations are committed to growing spiritually and being active in their churches. So, if at a certain time in our life when we are willing and ready for a closer walk with the Lord, it helps to fellowship with that 30%!

 

[Alfie]

Tonks40:

He’s talking about eternal life here in His Kingdom…not physcial. Says right there in the text. We take the Eucharist in order to receive the promises of eternal life.

Exactly, and the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine are symbolic and not literal. Jesus wasn’t even dead when he made his statements about his blood and flesh. I suppose that Jesus ate his own flesh and drank his own blood at the last supper. There is no word Eucharist mentioned in the Bible.

We already have the promise of eternal life when we confess our sins, ask for forgiveness, repent of those sins and ask Jesus to become our Lord and Sacvior.

Read Romans in the New Testament that will tell you everything that you need to know about salvation. The Eucharist is a form of works and that can’t get you to heaven.

 

[Alfie]

Kay Cee:

This is not the point.

The point is whether or not what the Catholic Church teaches is true. Not how well it is accepted, or how easily it is known.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a geometry teacher is teaching the Pythagorean theorem. Some students understand it; some don’t. Does the fact that some students do not understand the theorem make it untrue? Or could it be that the teacher didn’t teach it well? Or could it be that some students had not yet reached a level of understanding so that they could grasp it?

(Feb. 9).

That isn’t a very good analogy. The Bible says that the Gospel message is so simple that even a little child can understand it. Catholism turns the Bible message of salvation into a great big complicated ordeal. It is like the IRS overly complicated.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Alfie:

Exactly, and the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine are symbolic and not literal. Jesus wasn’t even dead when he made his statements about his blood and flesh. I suppose that Jesus ate his own flesh and drank his own blood at the last supper. There is no word Eucharist mentioned in the Bible.

We already have the promise of eternal life when we confess our sins, ask for forgiveness, repent of those sins and ask Jesus to become our Lord and Sacvior.

Read Romans in the New Testament that will tell you everything that you need to know about salvation. The Eucharist is a form of works and that can’t get you to heaven.

It took a bit to catch up on this thread but I see we are still coming back to a same point.

Can I say it seems the “thoughts, feelings, reasons” for participating in the Eucharist/Lords Supper are the same.

There is discussion on time and space but everybody is thinking back to the “event” no matter how one describes it.

We are back to symbol and literal. Maybe it can be explained just HOW is the literal thinking of it as flesh is DIFFERENT from symbolicaly thinking of it as flesh.

Because in either case its not physically the actual flesh, so BOTH are envisioning.

This is a hump thats preventing understanding here between eeryone.