Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Cinette]

I will try, though I will have to be brief. My wife thinks I’m at the post office, doing errands. And I must needs be, forewith.

This is, in fact, very similar to the first post I ever made on the internet, around 8-9 years ago, helping some nice RCS with the same question.

…

So much for the Anglican Communion. This does not address those Anglican Churches which are not in the Communion, for various and weighty reasons. Lots of them. Like me.

Anglicans come in a wide variety of flavors. And yes, the liturgy of most is very like, say a TLM, in English. Or (alas) a NO. There are reasons for this.

Any questions?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

Hi GKC –

I was terribly confused and so went to the Internet and found the following information:

The Anglican Communion is an international association of national Anglican churches. There is no single “Anglican Church” with universal juridical authority as each national or regional church has full autonomy. As the name suggests, the Anglican Communion is an association of these churches in full communion with the Church of England (which may be regarded as the mother church of the worldwide communion) and specifically with its principal primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. With approximately 77 million members, the Anglican Communion is the third largest communion in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Anglican Communion considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and to be both Catholic and Reformed. The communion encompasses a wide spectrum of belief and practice including evangelical, liberal, and catholic.

The Anglican Communion has no official legal existence nor any governing structure which might exercise authority over the member churches. There is an Anglican Communion Office in London, under the aegis of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it only serves a supporting and organisational role.

With all due respect I am left to conclude that essentially the “Anglican Church/Communion” is a branch which has separated from the Body. Insofar as the “Reformed” is concerned I get the impression that it is another word for “to have your cake and eat it” as the English expression goes or what Catholics call “Cafeteria Catholic”. As with Protestantism, it undergoes changes and splinters. So GKC, I fail to see how you cannot consider Anglicanism to not be Protestant – it is!

Look at history. What the Anglican Church overlooks is that Jesus did keep his promise to be with us always and to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

The Anglican church cannot claim to be One and yet splintered into different “communions”
The Anglican church cannot claim to be Apostolic and repudiate Apostolic Succession
The Anglican church cannot claim to be Catholic and not be part of the flock led by the Pope
**The Anglican church is therefore deprived **of certain graces which is the source of Holiness.

I do not say that Anglicans are not holy but that due to their interpretation of the faith and rejection of certain teachings and practices, their source of holiness has been diminished.

I have felt very sad by the problems of the Anglican Church and have prayed for the church. Of course I would like to see them in full communion with the Catholic Church but apart from that there are problems which are felt by us and we hope they can be sorted out.

I am a revert to the Catholic Church and do not claim to be knowledgeable as I am in the process of rediscovering my faith and learning things every day.

I have no doubt that my response will generate a reaction from you to which I look forward as you are always interesting and most gracious.

God Bless you
Cinette

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC –

I was terribly confused and so went to the Internet and found the following information:

The Anglican Communion is an international association of national Anglican churches. There is no single “Anglican Church” with universal juridical authority as each national or regional church has full autonomy. As the name suggests, the Anglican Communion is an association of these churches in full communion with the Church of England (which may be regarded as the mother church of the worldwide communion) and specifically with its principal primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. With approximately 77 million members, the Anglican Communion is the third largest communion in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Anglican Communion considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and to be both Catholic and Reformed. The communion encompasses a wide spectrum of belief and practice including evangelical, liberal, and catholic.

The Anglican Communion has no official legal existence nor any governing structure which might exercise authority over the member churches. There is an Anglican Communion Office in London, under the aegis of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it only serves a supporting and organisational role.

With all due respect I am left to conclude that essentially the “Anglican Church/Communion” is a branch which has separated from the Body. Insofar as the “Reformed” is concerned I get the impression that it is another word for “to have your cake and eat it” as the English expression goes or what Catholics call “Cafeteria Catholic”. As with Protestantism, it undergoes changes and splinters. So GKC, I fail to see how you cannot consider Anglicanism to not be Protestant – it is!

Look at history. What the Anglican Church overlooks is that Jesus did keep his promise to be with us always and to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

The Anglican church cannot claim to be One and yet splintered into different “communions”
The Anglican church cannot claim to be Apostolic and repudiate Apostolic Succession
The Anglican church cannot claim to be Catholic and not be part of the flock led by the Pope
**The Anglican church is therefore deprived **of certain graces which is the source of Holiness.

I do not say that Anglicans are not holy but that due to their interpretation of the faith and rejection of certain teachings and practices, their source of holiness has been diminished.

I have felt very sad by the problems of the Anglican Church and have prayed for the church. Of course I would like to see them in full communion with the Catholic Church but apart from that there are problems which are felt by us and we hope they can be sorted out.

I am a revert to the Catholic Church and do not claim to be knowledgeable as I am in the process of rediscovering my faith and learning things every day.

I have no doubt that my response will generate a reaction from you to which I look forward as you are always interesting and most gracious.

God Bless you
Cinette

The info you found is fairly accurate, as far as it goes. It is unlikely that the official Anglican Communion, those still in communion with Canterbury, actually number as many as 77 million these days. But who’s counting.

As to what Anglicanism is, it depends on who you ask. And also on what you are looking at, when you ask it…

As to the RCC saying it is protestant, which, in most circumstances it does, that’s ok by me. And, following on that, you should affirm the same. As you should do, WRT anything that is de fide, or part of the ordinary magisterium.

It will not surprise you that perhaps Anglicans might have a differing opinion on some of the points, of course.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Pete_Holter]

Radical and Pneuma! Great thread on Augustine and the Real Presence! I learned a lot and enjoyed the exchange. I wonder whether either of you thinks that the following quote advances the discussion:

“For as Judas, to whom the Lord gave a morsel, gave a place within himself of the devil, not by receiving what was bad, but by receiving it badly, so each person, on receiving the sacrament of the Lord, does not cause that it is bad because he is bad himself, or that he has received nothing because he has not received it to salvation. For it was none the less the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord, even in those to whom the apostle said, ‘He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself’ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27, 29)” (, Bk 5On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

Thank you and God bless you!

 

[Cinette]

The info you found is fairly accurate, as far as it goes. It is unlikely that the official Anglican Communion, those still in communion with Canterbury, actually number as many as 77 million these days. But who’s counting.

As to what Anglicanism is, it depends on who you ask. And also on what you are looking at, when you ask it…

As to the RCC saying it is protestant, which, in most circumstances it does, that’s ok by me. And, following on that, you should affirm the same. As you should do, WRT anything that is de fide, or part of the ordinary magisterium.

It will not surprise you that perhaps Anglicans might have a differing opinion on some of the points, of course.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

If GKC couldn’t convince you my friend then who but the Holy Spirit can do that!

 

[Pete_Holter]

That “judgment” is coming, I am sure.

I have grown to love this passage in John 6 regarding the Lord’s Supper:

“`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’” (John 6:53,54).

Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is symbolic language for the assimilation of the Word of God, through which believers maintain communion with heaven and are enabled to have spiritual life. He says, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life'" (John 6:63). "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matt. 4:4).

Believers feed on Christ, the bread of life, through partaking of the Word of life–the Bible. The Bible is the Christian’s “food.” With that Word comes Christ’s life-giving power. In the Communion service also we partake of Christ by assimilating His Word through the Holy Spirit. For this reason the preaching of the Word accompanies each Lord’s Supper.

Since we appropriate the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice by faith, the Lord’s Supper is much more than a mere memorial meal. Participation in the Communion service means a revitalization of our life through Christ’s sustaining power, providing us with life and joy. In short the symbolism shows and declares that "we are as dependent on Christ; and His Word for spiritual life as we are on food and drink for physical life.

During the Communion service we “bless” the cup (1 Cor. 10:16). This means that as Christ “gave thanks” for the cup (Matt. 26:27), so we express gratitude for the blood of Jesus.

The Saviour Himself explains how to understand His use of the idea of “eating His flesh.” His “flesh” is “life” as He says it in John 6; and to explain the intended symbolism, Jesus says: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

In The Lord’s Supper, the “flesh and blood” are symbolic of God’s Word, and the Christian who feeds on it daily will have the “life” spoken of in Jo.6: 63

Let us examine for a moment some Bible examples of Eating The Word:

Jeremiah said: “Thy words were found and I did eat them…” (Jer.15:6). Ezekiel also talked about “eating the roll” and how “it was in my mouth as honey, for sweetness.” (Ez. 3:1-3). In Revelation 10, the prophet John (Rev.10: 9-10), like others in the Old Testament; “took the book and ate it up.”

Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

The word of God must be interwoven with the living character of those who believe it. The only vital faith is that faith which receives and assimilates the truth till it is a part of the being and the motive power of the life and action. The Word “live” in Mat.4:4 means the same “life” as is alluded to in Jo.6

Man does not live by bread alone; but by what??? Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock…

Hello Protestant! There is a lot of good stuff here (although I removed one sentence)! And I mean this sincerely. I especially enjoyed this line of thinking:

The Saviour Himself explains how to understand His use of the idea of “eating His flesh.” His “flesh” is “life” as He says it in John 6; and to explain the intended symbolism, Jesus says: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

I think that this is really beneficial to think about and draw nourishment from. The connection you made between the life received from the words of Jesus and the life received from the flesh and blood of Jesus is really brilliant. And I think that it really brings clarity to what Jesus is saying in John 6.

But I wonder if Jesus wanted merely to equate the two. I have Luke 24 in mind and what I’m thinking is that the life that we receive from the words of Christ is somehow brought to greater fulfillment when we receive Christ in the breaking of the bread. The disciples said that Christ was known to them in the breaking of the bread; and to know Christ is the basis of eternal life (cf. John 17:3). In light of Luke 24, I was thinking that the connection might be better established in this relationship: the words of Christ in Scripture are a promise of, a preparation for, and bring meaning to the Life that is received from the flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The one who believes in Christ has eternal life, in some measure, because that same person will go on to receive Christ in the Eucharist.

Thanks again for this post. I’ve really benefited from it. And it really makes sense of Peter’s final remarks, “You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). But again, how do you see this concluding statement in connection with Luke 24? I’m not able to avoid the implication that His “words of eternal life” lead us to a deeper experience of Him in the breaking of the bread.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Proving that this first Lord’s supper, and Jesus’ use of terms referring to His “Flesh” and His “Blood,” had to have been symbolic, for the Real Sacrifice had not yet even occurred.

Catholics view the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as extending through time. We see Jesus in heaven as a “Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev 5:6). Within the context of the Lord’s Supper, and as it relates to His sacrifice on Calvary on this point, we note that at the institution of the Supper, Jesus says, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:27-28; cf. Mark 14:24). The point to be made here is that Jesus says, “which is poured out.” This language, rather than being, “which will be poured out,” helps to support the Catholic understanding of the Supper and the Sacrifice as being a single event and of the Sacrifice itself as extending through time. His blood is poured out whenever the Supper is celebrated. Scott Hahn wrote “The Hunt for the Fourth Cup” which may also help you understand the perduring nature of Christ’s sacrifice.

John 10:9 Jesus calls Himself “The Door,”
Jesus used many metaphors of inanimate things to teach different truths about Himself. He said, “I am the door'" (John 10:7), "I am the way’” (John 14:6), “I am the true vine'" (John 15:1), and "I am the bread of life’” (John 6:35). We cannot take any of these expressions literally, for He is not present in every “door,” every “way,” every “bread” or every “vine.” Instead, all these symbols illustrate deeper Truths which are ignored by the Catholic doctrine of eating the literal flesh of our Lord.

What I would like to point out here is that Jesus did not set up a door for us to walk through, saying that the door was He and telling us to continue performing this ritual, or something similar, etc. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is one aspect that distinguishes the graphic language concerning His Body and Blood from all of the other imagery He uses. I don’t think that Catholics ignore the deeper truths. And I’m not sure that it gets any deeper (or stranger) than human beings eating the God of all creation! The unsurpassable sermon that Jesus delivered to the disciples on the road to Emmaus left their hearts burning, and this desire was quenched in the breaking of the bread. And so it might be better to think of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as the Deepest Truth.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Of “eating His flesh” and “drinking His Blood;” Jesus says: “Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me;” (1 Cor.11:24) also showing the symbolic nature of His terminology here.

The Greek word used here is “ah-NAHM-nay-sis.” According to Sungenis, it is used 7 times in the Septuagint, at Leviticus 2:2, 2:9, 2:16, 5:12, 6:15, 24:7 and Numbers 5:26 and 10:10; and it is used four times in the New Testament, at Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24 and 25, and Hebrews 10:3. If we exclude its usage in the Lord’s Supper narratives, it has reference, in every other case, to a sacrifice. The “reminder” or memorial is itself a sacrifice. If we carry this understanding over to the Lord’s Supper, we are very much encouraged to understand the Supper itself as a commemorative sacrifice, indeed, as the sacrifice of Christ offered on Calvary. We would have to break with the otherwise unanimous usage of this word in order to say that the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice.

In the deuterocanonical books, there is a single usage of this word that does not have strict reference to a sacrifice, and that is in Wisdom 16:6 (although the bronze serpent prefigures Christ’s sacrifice and could be thought of a sacrifice from that perspective). As a Protestant, this placed me in a somewhat awkward position. On the one hand, if, as a Protestant, I rejected the inspiration of Wisdom, then the Biblical witness concerning the use of this word was unanimously against the non-sacrificial understanding of the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, if I accepted the inspiration of Wisdom, then this weakened (without defeating) the argument from semantics; but it also brought me one step closer to Catholicism on the issue of the canon. Either way I turned, I would be brought closer to embracing the Catholic faith.

Well, I thought that this was a very strong argument when I was researching the Catholic Church, before I received the gift of the Catholic faith, and I wonder what you think of it.

There is no “re-presenting” or repeating of the “once for all” Sacrifice of Jesus mandated in the Bible. Jesus offered His body and blood “once” to satisfy the hunger and thirst of our deepest needs and desires for all eternity (John 6:50-54).

We agree with you that there is no repeating. And since this is the case, it would be very fair of you to change your signature from “repeated” to “re-presented,” since that is what the Church claims and does.

The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it. What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its ‘commemorative representation’ (memorialis demonstratio), which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary” (John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia).

I hope that this post helps you and draws you closer to Christ! If I have presented any misinformation, please let me know!

May the Lord bless you!

 

[GKC]

If GKC couldn’t convince you my friend then who but the Holy Spirit can do that!

Precisely, exactly, completely and to the syllable what I always say.

Am curently reading a long awaited book on Chesterton, Oddie’s CHESTERTON: THE ROMANCE OF ORTHODOXY. It, as I expected, will require we Chestertonians to rethink much of what we knew.

Good book.

GKC

 

[pneuma07]

not a bad answer…but not satisfying at this end.
)

I know my presentations are insufficient. … But was Jesus’ overall performance insufficient to propose the mystery of Eucharist ?

• it is not about maturity of faith, it is about an understanding of how creation works. …*

Or maybe it is mainly about how the Creator works, and their perception of Jesus’ life and deeds .Maybe it occurred to them eventually, also this: ( John 6) 11Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.
12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." Not exactly something belonging to ordinary life, and dealing with…bread. Not a bad introductory hint.

Any such poor a definition of omnipotence that stops before my “unthinkable” makes Our Lord bound by myself. By a “thinkable” of ours which is so limited, and so dynamic ( even by by what we can think …) . Was non-Euclidean geometry “ thinkable” before the XIX century ? Probably
Some guys would tell us in those times Jesus could not shape a triangle the sum of whose inner corners is more (or less) then 180°. …one could tell that is an inherent unavoidable feature of the definition of “ triangle”.
Please do not confuse concepts which are considered as useful to express somehow the mystery and the faith in the mystery itself. Quantum physics could likely be considered useful with some of its concepts in order to give an idea of the mystery of Trinity. Yet, you’d never say Arius had to be right b/c they could not held to quantum physics in ancient times. …

• They would have seen the material and not seen the non-material. A body is material and God is non-material. It is a very different thing to say that God is present here than it is to say that the body God clothed himself with, is present here.
  If the body has been converted from a material thing to an immaterial thing (at the Eucharist) then one should be talking about a spiritual (which is immaterial) presence and not a real bodily (which is material) presence. How a material thing could become an immaterial thing and still be that same thing, however, is still beyond me. *

A general question: does acceptability imply understanding ? Cannot I be so open to a revelation to accept it without being able to penetrate its mechanisms ?

And while we can torture ourselves with categories such as material-immaterial, can’t it be that before and more essentially than being beyond us, the mystery is beyond such categories as material-immaterial ?

 

[pneuma07]

To be specific it is the teaching of one individual within the sub-apostolic church. To what degree Ignatius’s view was shared by the entire Church is unknown. It is a teaching that gained acceptance or perhaps already enjoyed considerable acceptance. That said, I haven’t read an historian lately that thinks the Church started out with a single leader (aka bishop) per local church or thinks that it started out with even bishops leading at every local church. ) …

How do you know he was mistaken ?

The lines *he is in no better position to determine how the church should operate than any pastor in any church today (and perhaps even less so, depending on what scripture was available to him) * are the farthest from my perception of Christianity you’ve ever posted on this his forum.
But I suppose
you imagine that and we’d need an *ad hoc * thread not to derail the present one ( which has several rails already in it, anyway )

I cannot see Ignatius feels any necessity to “justify” his central tenet about the role of bishops. He communicates, preaches it , He extols it. No “proof” is shown, as you accurately noted. That is quite simply and very clearly described and prescribed. We don’t see he expects any doctrinal opposition. We see in general no record of opposition to this so early ecclesial development. Again, evidence was very accurately destroyed .
And Christendom would remain for 14 centuries totally under the fist of those power -thirsty self-proclaimed successors of the Apostles…. ever since the ones appointed by the Apostles themselves.

Who performed so unsuccessfully in teaching that their own disciples started deviating.

 

[Cinette]

Precisely, exactly, completely and to the syllable what I always say.

Am curently reading a long awaited book on Chesterton, Oddie’s CHESTERTON: THE ROMANCE OF ORTHODOXY. It, as I expected, will require we Chestertonians to rethink much of what we knew.

Good book.

GKC

We gave our son a 3 year subscription to the Gilbert Magazine. Does that make him or me the member of the Society?? or both??

Enjoy your reading.

Cinette

 

[Protestant101]

Hello Protestant! There is a lot of good stuff here (although I removed one sentence)! And I mean this sincerely. I especially enjoyed this line of thinking:

I think that this is really beneficial to think about and draw nourishment from. The connection you made between the life received from the words of Jesus and the life received from the flesh and blood of Jesus is really brilliant. And I think that it really brings clarity to what Jesus is saying in John 6.

But I wonder if Jesus wanted merely to equate the two. I have Luke 24 in mind and what I’m thinking is that the life that we receive from the words of Christ is somehow brought to greater fulfillment when we receive Christ in the breaking of the bread. The disciples said that Christ was known to them in the breaking of the bread; and to know Christ is the basis of eternal life (cf. John 17:3). In light of Luke 24, I was thinking that the connection might be better established in this relationship: the words of Christ in Scripture are a promise of, a preparation for, and bring meaning to the Life that is received from the flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The one who believes in Christ has eternal life, in some measure, because that same person will go on to receive Christ in the Eucharist.

Thanks again for this post. I’ve really benefited from it. And it really makes sense of Peter’s final remarks, “You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). But again, how do you see this concluding statement in connection with Luke 24? I’m not able to avoid the implication that His “words of eternal life” lead us to a deeper experience of Him in the breaking of the bread.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

LOL, which sentence did you leave out? I’ll have to go and check.

The way I see it, from Scripture, is that Christ’s is present through His Word; just as He would be present during any Church “sacrament.” But it is His Word used and dwelt upon during the sacrament, whereby He is present. For eg., with Mass; He is present in the experience, but not in the bread used during the experience. This is why I have no doubt that Catholics, atleast some, who do it “worthily,” do experience Christ’s presence during their sacrament of Eucharist. That has never been a question I have had in all our discussions. But conversely, that is also why I have called this thing about Jesus being a piece of bread as “heretical” and “apostate.” It is not right - and not needed, on many counts.

2Pe 1:4

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,

“His promises” are His Word. The Bible means what it says. It does not say in John 6 that we partake of His divine nature by eating Him, in any form; whereas there are Bible verses throughout the old and new testament which clearly show how God sees His Word, as our “food.”

When my kids were little, and I took them to what we call “Sabbath School” in our Church, I didn’t do it because of the denomination, or the teachings, or any such thing. A picture I once saw in some old Adventist literature tells it best. It was a picture of some people going into the front door of the church. The picture reflected an “apparition” type of Jesus standing there, opening the door for everyone who came to the door. The idea was that when we bring our children to Church, we bring them to Jesus. Ever since, I have had the growing conviction that when I go to church, I am going to see Jesus. That includes all parts of the church and fellowship. He is present at all these experiences, but never once is He present in an inanimate object of matter; atleast not in ways we can “partake of” He is always present in Person.

You said:

the life that we receive from the words of Christ is somehow brought to greater fulfillment when we receive Christ in the breaking of the bread

What do you mean “greater fulfillment?” How can it get any greater? Either He is present, or He is not. You might want to look in the Bible to see what it says about “holy ground.” Why is it “holy?”

 

[guanophore]

But conversely, that is also why I have called this thing about Jesus being a piece of bread as “heretical” and “apostate.” It is not right - and not needed, on many counts.

How do you account for the fact that Jesus was unable to convince the Apostles that they got it wrong? He took such pains with Peter to show him that Gentiles were allowed. Why did He not do the same for this? How is it that all other departures from Apostolic Teaching met with fierce defence by the Church, but this belief persisted while all other heresies were defeated?

 

[Protestant101]

How do you account for the fact that Jesus was unable to convince the Apostles that they got it wrong? He took such pains with Peter to show him that Gentiles were allowed. Why did He not do the same for this? How is it that all other departures from Apostolic Teaching met with fierce defence by the Church, but this belief persisted while all other heresies were defeated?

“All other heresies” have NOT been defeated.

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant101,

I agree with you that Jesus used many metaphors with inanimate things to teach deeper trurths about Himself.

Notice how all of the metaphors which you refer to above are structured.

Jesus says that He is “some thing”
I (Jesus) am the door (some thing)
I (Jesus) am the way (some thing)
I (Jesus) am the true vine (some thing)
I (Jesus) am the bread of life (some thing)

This is the case over and over where Jesus uses inanimate objects to teach spiritual truths about Himself.

But there is one very glaring exception to that rule…and that is at the Last Supper when Jesus institutes the Eucharist, when He says…

Mark 14:22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Mark 14:23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24"**This is my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

At the Last Supper is the only place where Jesus says that “some thing” is Him.

This (some thing) is my body (Jesus)
This (some thing) is my blood (Jesus)

This is the only place where Jesus says that some thing is Him…and He cannot lie.

It is so, because Jesus, The Word of God, spoke…and it was, and it is.

God bless all!!!

You have deceived yourself very well here. If Jesus says “I am the door,” then one could say “the door is Jesus.” it means the same type of thing as would our Lord when He says: “This is my flesh.”

Jesus says: “This is my body.”

Is this literal?

“I am the true vine,”

But, contrary to what you say Patrick, in your post, this type of symbolism is not just limited to inanimate objects - the Bible extends in same kind the same type of symbolism to real people too:

“These women are the two covenants” (Gal_4:24), etc. are kindred expressions.

The idea is: “This represents my body.” The eating of the bread is not to literally eat the Lord’s flesh, but is done “in remembrance”.

It is a token that reminds us of His broken body. The Bible says “in remembrance.”

Another reason given for “eating the bread” is this:

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

That is, we proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God, and to all the world. Our Sacrament in the Communion Service is a testimony to the world of Christ’s death, and the promise of His second coming. The Lord’s Supper is the great preacher, through the sybolism of the Communion Service, (kataggellete) of the death of Christ till his second coming (see also Mat.26:29, Luke 22:18).

 

[Cinette]

LOL, which sentence did you leave out? I’ll have to go and check.

The way I see it, from Scripture, is that Christ’s is present through His Word; just as He would be present during any Church “sacrament.” But it is His Word used and dwelt upon during the sacrament, whereby He is present. For eg., with Mass; He is present in the experience, but not in the bread used during the experience. This is why I have no doubt that Catholics, atleast some, who do it “worthily,” do experience Christ’s presence during their sacrament of Eucharist. That has never been a question I have had in all our discussions. But conversely, that is also why I have called this thing about Jesus being a piece of bread as “heretical” and “apostate.” It is not right - and not needed, on many counts.

“His promises” are His Word. The Bible means what it says. It does not say in John 6 that we partake of His divine nature by eating Him, in any form; whereas there are Bible verses throughout the old and new testament which clearly show how God sees His Word, as our “food.”

When my kids were little, and I took them to what we call “Sabbath School” in our Church, I didn’t do it because of the denomination, or the teachings, or any such thing. A picture I once saw in some old Adventist literature tells it best. It was a picture of some people going into the front door of the church. The picture reflected an “apparition” type of Jesus standing there, opening the door for everyone who came to the door. The idea was that when we bring our children to Church, we bring them to Jesus. Ever since, I have had the growing conviction that when I go to church, I am going to see Jesus. That includes all parts of the church and fellowship. He is present at all these experiences, but never once is He present in an inanimate object of matter; atleast not in ways we can “partake of” He is always present in Person.

You said:

What do you mean “greater fulfillment?” How can it get any greater? Either He is present, or He is not. You might want to look in the Bible to see what it says about “holy ground.” Why is it “holy?”

Have you really read and pondered on the postings from tqualey, Pete, Benedictus and even mine? Have you? If you had you might have said “I must ponder…”

 

[hughi]

“There is no Biblical hermeneutic to support your exception; except of course your chosen catholic doctrine, which is not based upon the Bible, no matter how many times you quote John 6. It’s never going to mean what you want it to; just because you guys keep quoting it over and over, and trying to isolate it from the rest of Scripture.” /QUOTE]

Turning to a previous chapter in John’s Gospel, I can’t help but wonder why John 3:16 falls on so many deaf ears. The reasons are numerous, to be sure. (This is, by the way, probably one of the top 10 most quoted scriptures, if not #1, at least in Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist circles).

One of my own personal theories (derived from my valid life experience) is that people have lost a sense of both the mystical and metaphysical cores of Christianity.

For example, if one’s view of the universe is basically pantheistic, then God is in everything, and everything is in God. How many times have you heard that from your friends at work or school, both “Protestant” and “Catholic”? Was it not one of our more contemporary liberal theologians who concluded that God was not a person, for example, but that God was “Being?” Hence the death of the personhood of God and the birth and contemporary triumph of pantheism in modern “Christian” thought.

And to what extent has Buddhist and/or Pantheistic thought found its way into the hearts and minds of the average American, or Westerner for that matter? Think about it, and you decide.

Other reasons also account for the failure of modern Christian evangelism. Perhaps one might be the overwhelming victory of “symbolism” in Christian thought. The idea is so delightfully seductive! After all, once we’ve reduced everything to symbolistic of something else, sooner are later there are no absolutes left, and we’re “off the hook.” Going this route, is, most likely, the path of least resistance. Perhaps this is why so many devoted Christians are so unyielding on the metaphysical significance of the Eucharist.

Then … think about what happens when a sacament (an outward expression or sign of a Divine truth), is reduced to mere symbolism. Apply this concept to any of your favorite sacraments, and just see where it leads you. Rising divorce rate? Latch key kids? Thousands of men in work release centers, with no hope for a future? Can you think of any other examples?

Minus the Eucharist, we surrender the one physically present and reproducable metaphysical expression of the nature of God, HIs relationship to the material world, His proactive nature in providing for the salvation of Mankind, and the nature of true sacrifice, be it opposed to Pantheism, Deism, or any other philosophy or religion.

Gee, I wonder what Plato would have thought of a metaphysically dead religion?

P.S. Sorry I screwed-up on the Quote function. I’m new to this board and will have to read-up on how to do this properly.

 

[benedictus2]

LOL, which sentence did you leave out? I’ll have to go and check.

The way I see it, from Scripture, is that Christ’s is present through His Word; just as He would be present during any Church “sacrament.” But it is His Word used and dwelt upon during the sacrament, whereby **He is present. For eg., with Mass; He is present in the experience, but not in the bread used during the experience. **

No he is not present in the “experience”. Search the Bible and please give us chapter and verse where Christ says he is present in the “experience”. Whether you “experience” his prence or not, He is in the bread. You do not determine when He is present, Christ does.

Your “experience” can just easily be of the devil because he masquerades as an angel of light.

Your “experience” does not determine His presence. He is present because HE SAID SO, feelings or no feelings. You rely too much on subjective emotions.

You call yourself a Christian and yet here is Christ telling you in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that He is indeed the Bread that you must eat to gain eternal life and yet you do not believe Him. How sad. You pick and choose which words of Christ you believe so in effect it is not Christ who is Lord of your Life, but yourself.

This is why I have no doubt that Catholics, atleast some, who do it “worthily,” do experience Christ’s presence during their sacrament of Eucharist.

Our worthiness does not determine His presence. He gives himself to us as food whether we deserve Him or not. Our sins does not make Him disappear from the Bread. He is outside of us totally in control. But you would like to believe that you can control Christ’s presence. Sheer ego.

That has never been a question I have had in all our discussions. But conversely, that is also why I have called this thing about Jesus being a piece of bread as “heretical” and “apostate.” It is not right - and not needed, on many counts.

Actually you are the one who is apostate becuase you are going against Christ’s will. As I have said before, you may be sincere but painfully ignorant when it comes to the Eucharist. The sad thing is there is no need to be if you will just open your eyes and for once believe in Christ when He speaks.

“His promises” are His Word. The Bible means what it says. It does not say in John 6 that we partake of His divine nature by eating Him, in any form; whereas there are Bible verses throughout the old and new testament which clearly show how God sees His Word, as our “food.”

Wrong again. Christ said He is the bread. Christ is Divine. If you eat Him, you partake of His Divine Nature. That is why He said those who eat Him will live forever. Only those that are divine live forever.

And sorry to say this but your little references to other passages in the Bible have not in any way shown that God’s word is His Flesh. He is clear about the word Flesh.

 

[benedictus2]

What do you mean “greater fulfillment?” How can it get any greater? Either He is present, or He is not. You might want to look in the Bible to see what it says about “holy ground.” Why is it “holy?”

Exactly. Either He is preent or He is not.

Now you say He is not. But Christ says He is.

Between you and Christ, I believe Christ.

 

[hughi]

There is no Biblical hermeneutic to support your exception; except of course your chosen catholic doctrine, which is not based upon the Bible, no matter how many times you quote John 6. It’s never going to mean what you want it to; just because you guys keep quoting it over and over, and trying to isolate it from the rest of Scripture

Turning to a previous chapter in John’s Gospel, I can’t help but wonder why John 3:16 falls on so many deaf ears. The reasons are numerous, to be sure. (This is, by the way, probably one of the top 10 most quoted scriptures, if not #1, at least in Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist circles).

One of my own personal theories (derived from my valid life experience) is that people have lost a sense of both the mystical and metaphysical cores of Christianity.

For example, if one’s view of the universe is basically pantheistic, then God is in everything, and everything is in God. How many times have you heard that from your friends at work or school, both “Protestant” and “Catholic”? Was it not one of our more contemporary liberal theologians who concluded that God was not a person, for example, but that God was “Being?” Hence the death of the personhood of God and the birth and contemporary triumph of pantheism in modern “Christian” thought.

And to what extent has Buddhist and/or Pantheistic thought found its way into the hearts and minds of the average American, or Westerner for that matter? Think about it, and you decide.

Other reasons also account for the failure of modern Christian evangelism. Perhaps one might be the overwhelming victory of “symbolism” in Christian thought. The idea is so delightfully seductive! After all, once we’ve reduced everything to symbolistic of something else, sooner or later there are no absolutes left, and we’re “off the hook.” Going this route, is, most likely, the path of least resistance. Perhaps this is why so many devoted Christians are so unyielding on the metaphysical significance of the Eucharist.

Then … think about what happens when a sacament (an outward expression or sign of a Divine truth), is reduced to mere symbolism. Apply this concept to any of your favorite sacraments, and just see where it leads you. Rising divorce rate? Latch key kids? Thousands of men in work release centers, with no hope for a future? Can you think of any other examples?

Minus the Eucharist, we surrender the one physically present and reproducable metaphysical expression of the nature of God, HIs relationship to the material world, His proactive nature in providing for the salvation of Mankind, and the nature of true sacrifice, be it opposed to Pantheism, Deism, or any other philosophy or religion.

Gee, I wonder what Plato would have thought of a metaphysically dead religion?