Protestants: do you ever wish the Eucharist was more than just a symbol to you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeWillProvide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the idea of the Eucharist actually being Jesus Christ himself appealing to you? Or not?
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing.

I believe Christ’s words re: the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine are symbolic. We are to remember him by partaking. He chose the Jewish Passover for several reasons, not necessarily in this order.

Jesus being a Jew, followed the Jewish customs found in the Tanach , and the Passover was one of those remembrance customs. Most important is that Jesus himself WAS the Jewish Passover Lamb, the lamb without spot or blemish…they were to inspect the lamb prior, just as Jesus was inspected by Pontius Pilate who said " i find no fault in him"…

Jews are forbidden to eat anything with blood still in the flesh much less drink blood because there was life in the blood. Eating/drinking blood was a terrible sin, had its roots in pagan rituals and idolatry. Jesus was sinless and so his words re: Communion have to be symbolic vs eating his literal flesh and blood.

It’s no coincidence that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper at the Passover…he truly is the Passover Lamb with Jesus offering himself for our sins, began the New Covenant and we remember him at Passover.
 
HeWillProvide said:
Okay, new question:

How exactly do Protestants view the Eucharist? How exactly is it different from the Catholic view?
Click to expand...
Remember the word Eucharist means thanksgiving or grateful. The bread itself is not “THE” Eucharist. The meal as a whole represents a thanksgiving or eucharistia. In that light I believe in the real presence but not transubstantiation. That’s where many Protestants will differ from many Catholics. More than 50% of Catholics today do not believe in transubstantiation and see the bread and wine as symbols. A spiritual presence exists but not within the elements themselves. It exists as we partake in the supper in communion with one another including Christ.

It might interest you to know that in the early 19th century a group of Catholic theologians right from the Vatican interpreted the supper differently than the current transubstantiation doctrine. They wanted to stress more the “meaning” of the supper rather than a metaphysical change. In other words when you see the bread and wine what do they mean. The pope at the time deferred to the council of Trent’s definition of the supper and retained the doctrine of transubstantiation. But the doctrine has serious problems with it. If the substance of bread and wine literally leave to make room for the body and blood of Christ then no substances of bread and wine should remain. But if you ask your priest this weekend if the wine still contains alcohol he will say yes. Likewise if you tell him you are a celiac he will tell you the host contains gluten. If that’s the case then transubstantiation has not taken place.

PEACE
 
twohumble said:
Let me guess, every time I see a ‘gate’ I should partake because the gate mystically transforms into Jesus? Jesus is the Gate you know.

Every time I drink water, I should remember that Jesus said “I am Living water”, so Jesus becomes water?..shall I go on, ?

Which verses are analogs/metaphors? Which are literal? How do you differentiate?
Is the Genesis literal? Did Jonah get swallowed by a whale?

Where do you/how do you decide when you will call something literal vs metaphor?

Why does Rome declare Jonah a metaphor, or Jesus calling Himself ‘Living Water’ a metaphor, yet all of a sudden when He says “I am the Bread of Life” that is literal?? Please explain the hermaneutical logic here? Is there any, or is this ‘tradition’?

Remember this phrase clearly "Do this in rememberance of me.
It is awesome to go back and learn about the Passover, which was a foreshadowing of what was to come. Jesus explains the Passover to his Apostles at the Last Supper, and tells them to continue this ordinance "in rememberance of me". This was another prophecy of what was to come, and what will be. That is an awesome sign of Gods presence. I am sure there is a real “means of Grace” in this Blessed Sacrement, but to illogically, and with poor exegesis/hermaneutics declare that this is a literal statement when it is clearly written in an literary style consistent with his metaphorical language, is just silly.

Sorry in advance if this is offensive. I hope its not.
Click to expand...
Not offensive to me anyway. But two humble how does “do this for the remembrance of me” NEGATE or erase what Jesus also said “this IS my body”?

I have been hearing that rembrance bit for literally years (I am an ex-protestant myself, so none of this is new to me) and I still can’t understand how “in remebrance” does away with “this IS my body”. Jesus do not say 'this is only a symbol, metaphore, or emblem of my body".

Please explain this as after years in Protestantism I never understood.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
Depends on the believer. Most will affirm the Real Presence. Those who deny it are in the minority.

God bless you
Click to expand...
I will have to dissagree with you here. As far as I know there are only only two Protestant denominations to believe in the real presence, Lutherans and Epsicopalians, all the others beleive the blessed sacrament is symbolic only. And they are a small minority in today’s Protestantism. The vast majority are Evangelicals, and members of the so called “non denominational” denominations.

Once I talked with a Presbyterian minister who said they do not even believe in Calvin’s spiritual presesence, they believe in Zwingli’s symbol only idea.
 
HeWillProvide said:
Does the idea of the Eucharist actually being Jesus Christ himself appealing to you? Or not?
Click to expand...
It does not matter. I do not feel I would be closer to Jesus on my spiritual walk of I was physically chewing, swallowing, and drinking his flesh and blood.

It is hard for me to feel that it would be more appealing to me, I want to be closer to Jesus, as much as possible with every fiber of my body, but that action does not seem appealing to me.

It is very appealing to me to have the Holy Spirit pray through me in tongues, to interpret tongues, to perform miracles, to speak a word of knowledge, a word of wisdom, to heal the sick, etc. for Jesus and the growth of his kingdom.

youtube.com/watch?v=YgGu782dNX0
 
pipper said:
I will have to dissagree with you here.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t be the first 😃
As far as I know there are only only two Protestant denominations to believe in the real presence, Lutherans and Epsicopalians,
Click to expand...
I believe Methodist do and Presbyterians do as well. Episcopalians do and so do their English brothers and sisters the Anglicans. When I say that most Protestants affirm the Real Presence I don’t mean that most denominations affirm it. What I mean is, that since the Lutheran and Anglican traditions are, as far as I am aware, the largest non-Catholic denominations and they affirm the Real Presence (along with the Methodist and a few others) I would guess that the Real Presence is affirmed more than it is denied.

I could be wrong. But if it is denied more than it is affirmed it certainly is not denied at the rate that some people think it is.

God bless you
 
twohumble said:
Jon, let me start by saying “I appreciate your logic, and I think its well argued” I mean this very positively so thank you for your thoughtful response. I hope I come off with the same courtesy.

We must go back to what He is celebrating. “The Passover”. This is very telling in regard to why He says “This is my body”. He is picking up the 2nd of 3 loaves of unlevened bread. This piece is broken and a the broken piece is hidden away after it’s wrapped in linen. This piece is called the ‘afikomen’, which literally means “One who comes after”. The symbolism is unmistakable, given that this afikomen is found and unwrapped at the end of the meal and is considered a ‘desert’ or treat in the jewish tradition. Clearly, as Christians we know this is the second coming.

The fact that Jesus picks up the very loaf that symbolized the 2nd person of the Trinity for 2000 years before He came explains why He put His hand on it and said ‘This is My body’. This 2nd loaf of 3 loaves present at the last supper clearly and perpetually represented Jesus’s body which was about to be broken for us.

Just as the Cup of Salvation, which was only one of the cups on the table at this celebration (Elijah’s cup and others are also there), the Cup of Salvation is what He picks up at the Last Supper and again He explains what this 2000 yr old right represents: “This is my Blood”.

That is why He puts His hands on the bread and wine, He is showing them visibly what these 2000 yr old symbols represent. These have been symbols given to the Jews for 2000 years prior, and all along they represented Jesus and were prophetic in regard to His coming and what He would do when He came. Namely, His body would be broken, His blood would be shed. This is why the Jews baked 3 loaves (Trinitarian verse in Exodus), Jesus takes HIS loaf, and tells them “This always reprented me”.

In other words, Jesus was teaching the 2000 yr old message of the Passover to the Jews,(they never did seem to get it, sorta as bad as us hu?).

This does not in any way mean that they are ‘less symbolic’ and ‘more literal’ just because he laid hands on them. He did so to explain a 2000 yr old meal that was always symbolic and prophetic in regard to His coming and His purpose. Notice something telling: at the last supper which was a passover celebration which should have had a lamb sacrifice "there was no lamb. Why? Jesus was the Lamb. Again, He was teaching his Apostles what this great sign meant for the last 2000 yrs that they celebrated it.

I hope this helps in some measure.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph indicates that Christ in this manner changed (built on) the Passover symbolisms. Why do you believe that He couldn’t do that in terms of the Eucharist?
I know it sounds ironic coming from a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox, but affirming the real presence is as old as the Church itself. Luther, who had every reason to break with the historic Church on this issue, refused to even consider doing so. He even questions the Christianity of Zwingli over the real presence.
I will trust the teachings of Paul, the ECF’s, and the pre-schism Church on this matter.

Jon
 
HeWillProvide said:
Okay, new question:

How exactly do Protestants view the Eucharist? How exactly is it different from the Catholic view?
Click to expand...
Differnt traditions view it in different ways, just like Orthodox view it differently than Catholics. As for Lutherans:

From the Apology of the Augusburg Confession:
…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper
Click to expand...
In addition, one can go to the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration for a more indepth description.
bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

The difference is that we do not accept Transubstantiation, as we believe there is no explicit scriptural support of the claim that that which makes bread bread is removed, leaving only the accidents. That the bread and wine become the body and blood is explicitly supported by scripture is clear. How this happens is a mystery.

Jon
 
pipper said:
Not offensive to me anyway. But two humble how does “do this for the remembrance of me” NEGATE or erase what Jesus also said “this IS my body”?

I have been hearing that rembrance bit for literally years (I am an ex-protestant myself, so none of this is new to me) and I still can’t understand how “in remebrance” does away with “this IS my body”. Jesus do not say 'this is only a symbol, metaphore, or emblem of my body".

Please explain this as after years in Protestantism I never understood.
Click to expand...
Pipper, it does not need to negate something that is not there. Jesus taught parabolically, symbolically and metaphorically all the time. He, in His Apostles presense had proclaimed Himself to be a gate, living water and a number of other symbols representing His role in the Trinity, in relation to us (husband, brother), His relation to our Salvation (lamb) and in each instance the symbol had great cultural meaning and understanding (sheep need more care than any other domestic heard,we are not sheep accidentally, yet we are not really sheep, but symbolically)

The teaching of His disciples the meaning of Passover by saying ‘this is my body’ is a clear reference to the 2nd loaf of unleavened bread and its clearly an explanation, just as when he raises the ‘Cup of Salvation’ and says 'this is My blood", He is teaching the meaning of a rite or ritual that the Jews practiced for 2000 yrs and never really understood, because they never had the context until Jesus came to explain it.

Jesus constanty showed how He was the fulfillment of OT imagery/prophesy and promises.
Here are some more: the Serpent in the Desert , He was the Rock that gave water in the wilderness (the rock that was struck as a judgement with the rod of Moses , this rod struck Jesus as He provided for them…symbolically Paul explains Jesus was the Rock that stood in place of Moses for judgement before the people, He took the Rod…again, a foreshadowing of things to come)

Jesus constantly showed exactly like what he taught at the last supper: He is the fulfillment of what was symbolized in all the OT rites/rituals/imagery that the Jews were familiar with for over 2000 yrs.

So, in summary, ‘in Rememberance’ does not negate the real presense (I believe in a real presense, just not a transformation of the elements) but it does not have to negate something that is not implied in the text except in the minds of those who have decided for some unknown reason, to take this clearly metaphorical phrase, and decide its literal rather than metaphor. Its only this eisegesis or imposition on the text that requires any explanation.

The entire ministry of Jesus was showing the Jews how He was the embodiment of all the OT imagery given by God to them for centuries.
 
JonNC said:
Your last paragraph indicates that Christ in this manner changed (built on) the Passover symbolisms. Why do you believe that He couldn’t do that in terms of the Eucharist?
I know it sounds ironic coming from a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox, but affirming the real presence is as old as the Church itself. Luther, who had every reason to break with the historic Church on this issue, refused to even consider doing so. He even questions the Christianity of Zwingli over the real presence.
I will trust the teachings of Paul, the ECF’s, and the pre-schism Church on this matter.

Jon
Click to expand...
Not at all Jon, He did not change it: you say in the first sentence above that I indicate Jesus changed or added too the Passover. How? There was no lamb because he was the sacrifice He was the Lamb, so there was not another. Was he a real lamb? No, this was the symbol of the passover for the perfect sacrifice for sins. It was a symbol and Jesus proclaims He is the fulfillment of its purpose, He is the perfect Lamb.

Next you affirm the ‘real presense’, I have not denied a mysterious nature or a mystery to the Lords Supper, there is, in my opinion, a real presense.

There is not any reason, other than bad hermeneutics, to interpret Jesus’ comments as literal about the flesh and blood or the transformation of the elements. This is just traditional thought that has been passed down for centuries without good literary and exegetical sense.

I think only a few would argue that there is not a real mystery and presence associated with this sacrament. Hence I am not arguing that the sacrement of Communion is ‘only symbolic’, I am saying the elements are, however.
 
If someone say’s to do something to remember them by it to me would mean because this is as close as you can get to me when i am gone, this is it, by diong this you show my death until i come and i and you are one, we are together in this.Yes! Christ is with you in the Eucharist,or he would not have told you to do this for as often as you do this(OFTEN) not once a year or every 6 months but (Often) you do this in my memory.WHY does a soldier Salute, every time? Love of Christ Nancy We are Soldiers of the cross, He is our commander(Chief) It is an Honor to be part of his army!
 
HeWillProvide said:
I think all miracles Jesus performed could be questioned. How do you fill baskets with leftover fish and loaves when you only have a couple of each?, etc

So do Protestants believe there is a “spiritual” presence in the Eucharist? If so, what is the difference between that and the “physical”? Like, the bread remains bread but God is there, in the church?
Click to expand...
I believe what Jesus said. I have no idea how it happens or in what sense. That matter seems less important than the simple Faith in Jesus’ words. The Catholic explanation is several centuries younger than the practice itself.
 
twohumble said:
Not at all Jon, He did not change it: you say in the first sentence above that I indicate Jesus changed or added too the Passover. How? There was no lamb because he was the sacrifice He was the Lamb, so there was not another. Was he a real lamb? No, this was the symbol of the passover for the perfect sacrifice for sins. It was a symbol and Jesus proclaims He is the fulfillment of its purpose, He is the perfect Lamb.

Next you affirm the ‘real presense’, I have not denied a mysterious nature or a mystery to the Lords Supper, there is, in my opinion, a real presense.

There is not any reason, other than bad hermeneutics, to interpret Jesus’ comments as literal about the flesh and blood or the transformation of the elements. This is just traditional thought that has been passed down for centuries without good literary and exegetical sense.

I think only a few would argue that there is not a real mystery and presence associated with this sacrament. Hence I am not arguing that the sacrement of Communion is ‘only symbolic’, I am saying the elements are, however.
Click to expand...
So, you are only arguing against Transubstantiation?
Jon
 
twohumble said:
Yes, sorry if this was’nt clear.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it wasn’t, but probably my fault.:o Would you agree then that Christ’s words tell us that the bread and wine become His true and substantial body and blood, though how this mystery happens is beyond our understanding?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Sorry, it wasn’t, but probably my fault.:o Would you agree then that Christ’s words tell us that the bread and wine become His true and substantial body and blood, though how this mystery happens is beyond our understanding?

Jon
Click to expand...
Now here I am unclear. What do you mean by this phrase, as it sounds an aweful lot like Transubstantiation to me? I don’t believe that the elements are transformed into anything. I do believe that by partaking in Communion/The Lords Supper, that there is a mysterious presence, and a real means of Grace present in the sacrament.

I don’t buy into ‘consubstantiation’ either. Rather, its by communing together in this meal, Jesus is with us and there is Grace associated with it.

You say “the bread and wine become His true and substantial body and blood”. How is this different than the doctrine of Transubtantiation?
 
I believe that Christ is spiritually present along with the elements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top