Protestants: If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, explain this!

[Radical]

3rd bold: the Catholic position is that the Eucharist references are literal and not to be taken figuratively. In your argument, you seem to suggest that the context of Augustine’s writing is only in not taking figurative language literally. When you exclude the converse, you run the risk of reaching an erroneous conclusion because you are not applying the subject to it, as well.

in order to try and salvage Augustine’s remarks you have totally disregared these words of his:

…as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist
2. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood) is error.

4th and 5th bolds: How is a literal interpretation inconsistent with purity of life or correctness of doctrine?

b/c it “is a mark of weakness and bondage”

As I have explained in many ways, the truth of a physical Real Presence is so much deeper and operates on so many more levels to demonstrate the love of God, the full spectrum of Jesus’ actions, and the means and completeness (including both our physical and spiritual self) of his truth. You lose all of that if you take the bread and wine as merely figurative.

And if it is all just a man-made doctrine the loss is a loss of error.

How does the Real Presence kill?

from Augustine: And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter.

I argue that those of you who do not take the Eucharist as truly Christ physically present are the ones looking no further than a little symbol, whereas those who recognize the Real Presence look far, far beyond the mere symbol to the multifaceted dimensions of God’s love, unity He brings about for and through us, and indeed sees all of Christ’s truth made present in this one Sacrament. To not acknowledge the Real Presence is exactly what Augustine is talking about when he mentions the carnal slavery, for it is not recognizing it that limits one’s view.

the problem with your argument is that bit from Augustine that reads:

And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.

One can summarize what Augustine said in that full paragraph (ch 9 ) as follows:

1. if you pay homage to a sign w/o knowing what it symbolizes then you are in bondage to the sign (ie the unspiritual Jews)
2. if you pay homage to a sign and know what it symbolizes then you actually pay homage to what the sign symbolizes and you are not in bondage to the sign (ie the OT prophets)
3. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as one of the few rites that replaced the many
4. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood) is to interpret them wrongly and to be misled by error.
5. If you know the bread is a sign, but don’t understand what it symbolizes you are not in bondage
6. It is better to be in the bodage of #1 than the error of #4

 

[Radical]

Fittingly, a belief in the Real Presence looks beyond the mere bread and wine to all facets of this reality, seeing Christ present as Word, Lamb, crucified Body and saving Blood,…

Augustine would agree that (to avoid the carnal approach) one must look beyond the mere bread and wine, but he never acknowledges that Jesus is present. If he did think Jesus was present, then he would be arguing against himself when he warned that one should not take the sign for the thing that it signified… b/c if Augustine believed Jesus to be present then:

a) the bread would actually not signify anything b/c it was actually the body (and the body cannot signify itself); or
b) the bread would actually signify the body and since the body was present under the species of the bread it would be entirely appropriate to take the bread for the body (as you, Arandur seem to do in opposition to Augustine’s direction)

…if one desires to give Augustine an Aristolean outlook and say that Augustine was arguing one should not take the accidents of the bread for the substance of the body then, at the very least there should be some reference somewhere in Augustine’s consideration of the Eucharist to the idea of accidents and substance (and especially at this point in his argument)…but there isn’t.

Our carnality is overcome by Christ’s when we subject ourselves to him in the Eucharist. This would not be so if he were not physically present.

This again is you saying how God must do things…when Augustine talked of a carnal approach, he said, “when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner.”

Of course, the Eucharist is both sign and substance; all this talk of signs must keep that in mind.

Augustine calls it a sign and I have given you some references in that regard…please reciprocate and provide where Augustine calls it a substance

 

[Radical]

Whether I view them on CAF or run into them in the real world, it always pains to me to hear people continue to get this crucial teaching of Jesus all wrong. People persist in cutting themselves off from the wellspring of life!

Fair enough…but it of course gets tiresome from this side to hear that I have got this crucial teaching wrong and that I have cut myself off from the wellspring of life. In the face of such remarks I feel fully justified in declaring that “No, you are in error and it is just a very significant symbol.” What gets extremely tiresome is that declaration that if I don’t believe what the RCC teaches then I am a) making Jesus out to be a liar and/or b) calling Jesus a fool.

“Figurative” is not exactly “exactly” if you know what I mean

well if you were as flexible with “exactly” as most RCs are with “literal” (as it pertains to the Eucharist) then this would be no issue whatsoever …if you know what I mean

The difference between the “I am the true vine” passage and the Bread of Life discourse is clear, is it not? The BOL discourse has all kinds of parallels to the Old Testament (manna, holocausts, lambs, seder meals, etc…on and on). These are exactly the things that Jews of the time would identify with! The RC view of the Eucharist accounts for all of that OT imagry.

So does the symbolic view…the difference is that the RC view thinks that the OT imagery is re-fulfilled at each and every Eucharist and the symbolic view holds that the OT imagery is fulfilled once and for all in the passion of our Lord.

On top of that, is the reaction of the thousands when they reject Jesus because they think he wants them to be “cannibals”, as you do.

I don’t think Jesus wants us to be cannibals and I don’t think the RC view amounts to cannibalism b/c of its reliance on Aristolean metaphysics…no one thinks that a participant actually gnaws on the flesh of Jesus (which is the graphic wording used by Jesus in John 6)…which, in part, is why the RCC view doesn’t take John 6 all that literally

As for the “true vine” discourse I just don’t see that many parallels with vines in the Old Testament. This is a primary indication that he is speaking metaphorically.

and if there was any doubt, the fact that no (observable) change occurs at the Lord’s Supper is a uber-primary indication that he was speaking metaphorically…

. You meet him spiritually.

Thank-you

I meet him physically and spiritually.

I believe that you are mistaken

I must say, it is quite a profound meeting, once you understand where you are!

and I have charismatic friends that claim the same profundity for their tongues and odd behaviour…and I see no reason to consider your claim to be any more valid than theirs.

 

[Arandur]

Radical, I’ll get back to you, but it will be a long post or series of posts and will take some time. I may not have time to do it properly for a day or two.

In the meantime, suffice to say that I think you have gravely misinterpreted Augustine and taken things to mean the opposite of what he says they mean, in many cases.

Look, for instance, into his definition of signs and things.
Look also into his explanations of how to determine if something is to be taken literally rather than figuratively, and how the literal consideration is done first (and note that it fits that the Jews were doing this in John 6 but couldn’t handle it, as it opposed their customs–which Augustine talks about in Ch. 10, p. 15).
Consider the consequences of each variation of belief (for that is a part of considering whether something is to be taken literally or figuratively).
Consider the analogies he presents, explaining some signs and things and proper, elevated interpretations (Sabbath; sacrifice–of which the Eucharist is the perfect one; baptism; other Jewish legal observances). See how interpreting the Eucharist would fit. It might help to list what you think in each case is the Sign and the Thing; what is the meaning, the reality (you might also follow through his books when he speaks of realities), and what is merely the “thing” part of the sign.

As to “accident” and “substance,” we are talking more about what the Church teaches, rather than the words it chooses. You can’t set Augustine against the Church (he did say:“Now Scripture asserts nothing but the Catholic faith, in regard to things past, future, and present.” ). He must be understood in the context of the Church. One must then consider what his contemporaries, such as his mentor Ambrose of Milan taught (I have quoted him previously here, IIRC). He must also be understood in context of his other writings, such as these:

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying.** They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. **For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

 

[Arandur]

I particularly like the last one. Why would he “adore” mere bread and wine if it were merely that and not actually Jesus, Really Present?

Please consider these things, and I will get back to you on the content of the OCD books and show you what they really mean based on their own internal explanations.

 

[Arandur]

So does the symbolic view…the difference is that the RC view thinks that the OT imagery is re-fulfilled at each and every Eucharist and the symbolic view holds that the OT imagery is fulfilled once and for all in the passion of our Lord.

Whoa, I have to stop you there. The Church says frequently that there is no “re-” anything. It is a participation in the actual, original Lord’s Supper. Just as the Jews believe that the Passover meal is a participation in the actual, original Exodus Passover meal. It happens just once. God makes it eternal, and lets us participate in it eternally. The symbolic view makes it much, much less meaningful, saying that it is just a memorial, just a repetition to try to remember the even, not an actual participation in the event.

I don’t think Jesus wants us to be cannibals and I don’t think the RC view amounts to cannibalism b/c of its reliance on Aristolean metaphysics…no one thinks that a participant actually gnaws on the flesh of Jesus (which is the graphic wording used by Jesus in John 6)…which, in part, is why the RCC view doesn’t take John 6 all that literally

The bread is his flesh and we “gnaw” on the bread (in that we eat it). This is another both/and situation. How is that not literal? By your definition, what would a literal interpretation be? And if the Catholic belief is not “literal” by your definition, then I take it our belief fits in your definition of a “figurative” interpretation? If so, why are we arguing that point from Augustine’s books?

and if there was any doubt, the fact that no (observable) change occurs at the Lord’s Supper is a uber-primary indication that he was speaking metaphorically…

Does Baptism bring about an observable change? Does ordination? Marriage? Anointing of the Sick? Does that mean that nothing actually happens?
When Jesus became man, could we perceive that God had actually become a man, or did people perceive just a man until they had the eyes of faith? Was the presence of God seen physically in the Incarnation (outside of the Transfiguration)? Something quite similar happens in the Eucharist, with God’s presence being perceived only by those with the eyes of faith, even as God’s presence as Jesus was only perceived by those with the eyes of faith. Your “uber-primary” indication would invalidate the Incarnation and the Sacraments, and so is not an evidence at all.

 

[Radical]

In the meantime, suffice to say that I think you have gravely misinterpreted Augustine and taken things to mean the opposite of what he says they mean, in many cases.

…… He must also be understood in context of his other writings, such as these:

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

I particularly like the last one. Why would he “adore” mere bread and wine if it were merely that and not actually Jesus, Really Present?

Well since you particularly liked the last one, I’ll focus on that passage. I’ve dealt with most of the others on this and other threads and none of them establish (for Augustine) a belief in a real bodily presence.

In his consideration of Psalms 98, Augustine is working off of a bad interpretation which causes him to believe that we are told to worship God’s footstool. From there Augustine continues:

1. from other scripture, God’s footstool is identified as earth
2. how are we to worship God’s footstool/the earth when we are to worship (only) God?

Augustine then arrives at his solution to this dilemma as follows:

a) b/c flesh is from earth and b/c Jesus took on flesh from Mary, Jesus took upon himself earth
b) Jesus gave us that flesh to eat (right after this point Augustine quotes from John 6 and from OCD we know that Augustine understands that eating Jesus’s flesh is “a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.)
c) As such, when Augustine said,“And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped”… what Augustine was saying is that no Christian can share in the sufferings of our Lord and retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us unless he has first worshipped that flesh.(and b/c of (a) above worshipping that flesh can be said to be worshipping God’s footstool)
d) Augustine then ends that paragraph by pointing out that we are not to drink the blood which will be poured out at Jesus’s crucifixion, but we are to understand the matter spiritually. (Augustine’s states that this is how Jesus clarified his difficult command in John 6 : “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.”)

As such, contrary to your claim, this passage from Augustine does not argue that we are to worship the elements of a sacrament. Instead, it argues that we are able to worship God’s footstool by worshipping Jesus/Jesus’s flesh (which is something that we must have already done if we retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us).

The added bonus from this passage (for us of the symbolic view) is that Augustine tells us that we are not to drink the blood which will be poured out at Jesus’s crucifixion, but we are to understand the matter spiritually….contrast that with the RCC’s claim that we drink the blood of Jesus based on Christ’s statement that "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” The beautiful irony of this is that, the proof text that is often provided by the RC as evidence of Augustine’s belief in a real bodily presence serves as evidence to disprove that claim when one goes beyond the sentence or two provided by the RC.

 

[elvisman]

The ultimate relationship???

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is so. To me, it sounds like you have to take part in the Eucharist in order to be Christian.
I don’t take part in Eucharist, I have Communion; to me, it is sacred. But, I don’t have to take part of it in such a way as you say it should be.
You tell *me.*Jesus said:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

---

**Whereas, I believe that Protestants are Christians, I don’t believe that they experience the fullness **of the Gospel.
To me, disobeying a direct command from Jesus and not having faith in him is having only partial truth.

Okaaay, so is this why in Mass the priest “turns” the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?
May I assume that you are having faith that this is literally the Flesh & Blood of Christ?

(this may seem a stupid question/s to you, but this is how I learn!)
Thanks; much obliged.

We Catholics believe exactly what Jesis said - that we eat his flesh and drink his blood because his flesh is TRUE food and his blood is TRUE drink.

 

[phoenix3212]

The ultimate relationship???

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is so. To me, it sounds like you have to take part in the Eucharist in order to be Christian.
I don’t take part in Eucharist, I have Communion; to me, it is sacred. But, I don’t have to take part of it in such a way as you say it should be.

Well yes, Catholics do view the Eucharist as the ultimate relationship with God. The Catechism even states that it is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). That’s not to say that those who don’t receive the Eucharist cannot have a relationship with God, because they surely can and do. Rather, it is saying that the Eucharist, in which a partaker receives the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus is far more fulfilling than anything else.

 

[Radical]

Arandur, you silence has allowed me to do some catching up….

And I have explained the similarities and the differences previously. By the consumption of the physical Eucharist, we do indeed become Christ’s body in a physical and literal sense, because we incorporate the physical substance of the Bread/Body into ourselves.

by this logic we would indeed become the steer’s body in a physical and literal sense, because we incorporate the physical substance of the hamburger into ourselves. Obviously, you are not using “physical” and “literal” in a manner that comes close to approaching normal usage.

Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 6:3; Galatians 1:8, for a few. In these it is clear that the angels have less authority than the Church. So what is it about the Church that gives it so great an assurance in spite of the message of an angel, who can come direct from God? Jesus’ promise to the Church and his gift to it of the Holy Spirit.

Here are the verses you cited. Romans 8: 38-39

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Cor 4:8-10

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you! 9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals. 10 We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.

1 Cor 6: 2-3

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters?

Gal 1:8

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

The only one that could be used to suggest that the Church has more authority than angels is 1 Cor 6: 2-3. It could be argued that a judge has more authority than the judged….but since we will only judge fallen angels, this doesn’t speak to the levels of authority that exist between God’s children and God’s angels. I doubt that we will make much progress in our discussions if you are inclined to be so inaccurate in determining what passages actually say.

You don’t understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility very well, do you?

I think it claims infallibility w/o impeccability….and I think that is questionable at best.

Individuals can make errors. On certain subjects and under certain conditions, the Church cannot. You believe a collection of books can properly teach truth inerrantly, preserved by God sufficiently through the ages despite many translations. However, no promise did Jesus give to texts, but to his Church.

Wrt the text that you see as granting this promise, does it specifically mention an infallible magisterium?..does it say that the promise will be fulfilled in a manner other than the provision of scripture? Personally, I believe that the text is the means provided by Christ to keep the Church in truth….and certain denominations can choose to disregard that means and (in error) add to it.

So why do you grant Scripture such authority unquestioningly,….

How do you know I haven’t asked some questions? Our ability to check ancient texts and determine the degree of error in transmission is much greater with scripture than it is for tradition.

Who is omniscient when they make an appointment?

Typically the “bad” popes were notoriously bad before they became popes…no need for omniscience to know their appointment was contrary to scripture.

And further, Paul is known for giving great advice, but occasionally of his own accord. What you refer to are matters of discipline. The particular organization of the Church is in many ways malleable, and worked out by the Church. Jesus did little dictating in this regard.

show me anything from official RC teaching that says Paul’s requirements for an overseer were merely his personal suggestions.

Matthew 10:14 and 10:40, for a couple. Those who don’t receive the Lord’s appointed servants refuse him. Do you have a better claim of apostolic succession than the Catholic Church?

quite possibly…true apostolic succession is the adherence to the teachings and the faith of the apostles (w/o uninspired additions)

So you’re saying Jesus gave us no means of preserving his Truth and his Church?

no, I am saying that he gave us the Holy Spirit and his Word

You’re claiming that Jesus is the fool who built a house on shifting sand ….

your (offensive) words, not mine

Your statement suggests that you think this was a one shot thing. The Apostles knew a little something, and then everyone after them progressively lost it. Despite the fact that Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit precisely to bring them into remembrance of all things, to make up for their weaknesses. I really can’t comprehend the massive failure you think Jesus was as a leader and a planner an a King.

I can’t believe that you think God’s ability is to be judged by his children’s performance. By your logic here, God the Father was a massive failure as a leader and planner starting with Adam and Eve and continuing with all those that turned their back on him as indicated in the OT.

 

[Radical]

God and angels are spirit beings. They never Incarnated so as to make a physical human body an integral, unified part of their identity. Jesus has. Thus any manifestation Jesus chooses that is physical and holds his identity is a body. Besides which, you limit the term “body” too much.

Not too much. If you are going to qualify “body” with the descriptive “literal”, then you have to live with the limitations brought by “literal”.

Technically, anything physical is or can be a “body.”

perhaps, but it is a stretch (and far from literal) to claim that anything can be “my body”. Also, what about blood? Is it your opinion that any liquid physical thing is or can be blood?

The Eucharist is Christ physically present, and is therefore his “body.” You are trying to force it to be a complete physical human body when no one has claimed it is.

Then you should stop claiming that there is anything “literal” about the bodily presence….”real” is also very misleading.

Once instance was 1375, as you quoted. In the online reference, it contains this quote from St. John Chrysostom, explaining it: *Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204*

Yes, you will find many declarations (by adherents to a RP) that the bread and wine become the body and blood. Where I think you diverge from RC teaching is by saying that the body becomes the bread.

 

[hansard]

Hi, all. I’ve read most pages on the thread, and know how passionately the various cases have been argued. It’s just that this is a key sticking point in my faith at the moment, and one for which I’ve been looking for answers (CAF has been great, by the way).

A few thoughts:

I notice, on reading John 6 (the oft-cited authority on this) that Jesus spoke about his flesh being true food and his blood true drink. In almost the same breath, he said: “Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (6:58)
Therefore, taking the literalist approach, anyone who eats the flesh of Christ will not die, as those ancestors did. I mean, that’s what he said (vagaries of translation aside).
He can’t be talking about physical death, then, because it’s pretty clear that even the most dedicated Catholic is destined for physical death. Then he must be speaking symbolically, about a spiritual eternal life. Yet he didn’t bother to make this clear—he probably assumed that those closest to him would get the symbolism sooner or later, while others might be inclined to walk off and take the easy course.

He also said, in the same chapter: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life."
If the flesh counts for nothing, I wonder why Jesus has to be incarnated in the flesh (and blood) every second of the day in the Eucharist? It’s clear that even he regarded flesh as unimportant, while life comes from the Spirit. It would make perfect sense to carry out the Eucharistic celebration in memory of Christ, in which he is spiritually but not physically present (after all, Christ is in Heaven now, and has been for some time).

When he said, **“The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life,” **he must have been talking symbolically. Words cannot be life or spirit—they are breath forced through vocal chords and articulated phonetically with the mouth apparatus. What did he mean, then? My words are the means to life, if you follow them? My words are all you need? My words will save you? Probably all of these, and more, but the point is that he was using elevated language (like all great orators) to carry his message.

Also, remember, he made this little speech some time before the Last Supper, when the practice was officially instituted. Nobody could have had much of an idea of what he was talking about at the time of John 6. I suppose, after the supper, the apostles would have thought “Oh, that’s it, right.”

I believe this adds some weight to the argument that the Eucharist was intended as a symbolic act, but one in which Christ is truly present, as he promised (see Matt 18:20—the “whenever two or more of you…” passage).

We’ll argue all day about symbolism vs literalism, but I believe this is one of those occasions when Jesus carefully measured his language and gave out a guarded message to certain people who might be most receptive to it. And who hung around? You guessed it–his closest disciples, the very people who would most learn to understand his manner of speaking.

Had Jesus predicted the resulting confusion about this, I wonder if he would have taken an extra sentence or two to make it very clear. Probably not, I’m guessing!!

 

[Radical]

Hey hansard

Hi, all. …A few thoughts:

I like the way you expressed your thoughts…well said.

I believe this adds some weight to the argument that the Eucharist was intended as a symbolic act, but one in which Christ is truly present, as he promised (see Matt 18:20—the “whenever two or more of you…” passage).

this is the way I see it as well…

By the way, in Canada, Hansard is the publication that records the most boring, juvenile and inane arguments to be found in the land…do you have another name that I could call you?

 

[pneuma07]

First, regarding John 6

It is my impression that neither of us actually understand the passage literally, but it seems from your post (when you say, "Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally.”) that you might believe that you do understand the passage literally.
Wrt to your non-literal understanding:

 

[jean8]

(Joh 6:48 RSV) I am the bread of life.
(Joh 6:49 RSV) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50 RSV) This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
(Joh 6:51 RSV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” No, he said to the twelve disciples “Do you also wish to go away?” and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus responds and says, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He was of course referring to Judas Iscariot who was to betray him as we learn in John 6:71. But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.

(1Co 11:23 RSV) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
(1Co 11:24 RSV) and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
(1Co 11:25 RSV) In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
(1Co 11:26 RSV) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(1Co 11:27 RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Again, tell me, how can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord by receiving the Eucharist unworthily if it is not truly His body, blood, soul, and divinity?

Also, tell me, how could it not be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when all of the early Church fathers believed it to be so?! (See the following web pages for sources:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-II

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Catholics, feel free to respond with further insight in to these verses and this post.

Protestants, feel free to respond with any doubts you may have. I, or my more knowledgeable Catholic brethren would be happy to assist you in clearing this doubts up.

holly,
How do you view Jn.6:53-56? See also, 1Cor.11:24-25

jean

 

[pneuma07]

.

(b) In the passage Jesus states that:

i) unless …
Obviously, Jesus wasn’t speaking about a physical reality or about the RC Eucharist b/c people who don’t eat Jesus’s flesh have physical life, Christians that believe in Jesus are physically thirsty, RCs that eat the Eucharistic bread do go hungry, do suffer a physical death and they don’t actually physically reside inside of Christ’s physical body. Therefore, it would seem that Jesus was speaking about a spiritual reality…which is why belief (a spiritual thing) is interchanged with eating as the thing that gives eternal life (v. 35, 40, 47,).

.

Does the CCC state that those who receive Holy Communion do not suffer physical death or anything like that ? Does that imply that Jesus was not speaking about a RP Eucharist ?
I get confused about your present use of “physical reality” vs “spiritual reality” here.
In what sense is the understanding of the Eucharist of the Apostolic Churches not “spiritual”, or not so spiritual as the modern ( and in your view original) merely symbolic understanding ?

This understanding is also reinforced by Christ’s clarification when he said, " It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

It is sad that this verse is often presented as a sort of key of a supposed mere symbolism of the Eucharist/Lord Supper. While in the rest of the BOL Jesus is speaking wrt “My flesh”, here you have a generic flesh. This can be considered the biblical use of “sarx” you have in Matthew 16 about Peter’s confession, and elsewhere. Meaning “our weekness, our mere reasons, our senses”.
By our mere “sarx” we are so ready to reject RP. His words were spirit and life. It is on Jesus’ words only that you can believe RP. Do you remember the ancient usage, blessed by St. Augustine, to call the Eucharist just “Life” ?

(c) Regarding the interpretation of this passage Augustine wrote: * “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”* As such, Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of “eating Jesus’s flesh”. Augustine recognized that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would require one to commit the crime of cannibalism. In a literal eating of flesh one would actually gnaw at Jesus’s flesh with one’s teeth…

You quote again the passage from De Christiana Doctrina, Book iii ch. 10. which I know to be of great relevance in your interpretative network of the augustinian eucharistic doctrine.

My answer : On Christian Doctrine Here the it has been explained by the Catholic contributions
a) the concept of “Eucharistic cannibalism” is simply untenable if attributed to Augustine
b) the grossly cannibalistic understanding of some hearers is what is referred to in the passage as classic example of misunderstanding

what is enjoined is Eucharist, to be later instituted. (I see you quoted this paragraph in Enarratio on Psalm 98,9 yourself in a later post).

Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His Body to give them … But He instructed them, ….”Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually( the latin has invisibly) understood.

This we can see as explicative of the less perspicuous sentence: enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
We have according to Augustine that Jesus does enjoin a Sacrament , to be celebrated visibly and understood invisibly.

Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?

There is no such dilemma as you put it here IMHO, but a trilemma, (which is , in fact a different dilemma. )

Namely:

1. Ordinary understanding by the hearers, “by cutting off parts” of the then walking Jesus. You, Augustine and I agree this is wrong.
2. Merely symbolic interpretation.
3. Sacramental interpretation. (like Augustine and I)

 

[pneuma07]

Do you really want to play this game? Please note that Jesus also didn’t say, “I know it sounds crazy, but there is a way for me to be bodily present w/o being physically present. By that presence you can eat my flesh w/o being cannibalistic. You see there are things called accidents and things called substances…”

I think it is important to note that Jesus had earlier said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” So obviously Jesus’s graphic words never drove anyone away (who had actually come to him). Would any clarification have brought any of them back if the Father wasn’t bringing them to Christ?

.

The point IMHO, is that they could not understand then the sacramental interpretation ( by quoting here technicalities about that you make my point) . On the contrary, a merely symbolic explanation could be understood by the disciples, or at least by the Twelve. But it was not given.

Your following observation does not help to understand why a simple explanation was not given in order to avoid a false ( if mere symbolism is to be believed) stumbling block for those disciples.
They are let go IMHO b/c they do not accept that besides the repulsive ordinary understanding there must be a profound mystery, to be revealed later. Which the Twelve, by Peter’s mouth, do.

 

[TLM08]

Of course it was a difficult teaching, but if the apostles had taken Jesus literally, why then did they not take him down from the cross and strip the flesh from his bones and consume it?

Jesus also said he was a vine and a door.

 

[East_Anglican]

But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.

I think you’re straining gnats.

Matthew 26:26-28

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

“Take and eat; this is my body”

“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the[a] covenant.”

Can somebody show me the scriptures where Jesus siad “Go and Philosophise about it and argue amongst yourselves for the next 2000 years.”???

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical and all !

If a lurker can join with some contributions….

….if you’ve been lurking yah shoulda joined in with some wisdom right away….Welcome! How is the wife?

As you know there is no pan-literalism in the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic doctrine, which, while strongly objecting to merely symbolic understandings, is very open to symbolisms as well. … If we agree on this there is no point IMHO in showing a catholic that not everything is to be taken litterally in the BOL speech.

well the point is that if not everything is to be taken literally in the BOL passage, then the RCC does not hold to a purely literal interpretation ….which in turn means that the OPster’s demand that we account for John 6 (b/c Jesus didn’t say that they took him too literally) is misplaced

Some non catholic brothers seem to believe everything here is only wtr to having faith, and nourishment from His Word. If that is all which is under the BOL speech, it does not make sense that the bulk of the disciples are let go without this quite simple and understandable key being offered. Same about leaving the core disciples waiting for a future explanation of the “hard saying”, remaining at the moment a veritable riddle for them.

Your reasoning seems to be based on the assumption that Jesus would have cleared up any misunderstanding that caused the bulk of his disciples to leave (especially where it could have been done with a “simple and understandable key being offered”.)

As we have both noted, Augustine described the misunderstanding as:

[Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His Body to give them …

We both agree that such would be a misunderstanding and that the misunderstanding is not in line with either the RP or the symbolic view. As such, in either case, Jesus does not correct the misunderstanding by the bulk. I don’t see why we should assume that he would have clarified his meaning if it was symbolic and not bothered if it was RP (which is an otherworldly presence and not a literal, physical or normal presence). What would have been Jesus’s purpose in providing such a clarification given that none of those that departed would have been among those drawn to Jesus by the Father?

We have both noted that Augustine did state that Jesus provided an explanation to the 12. Augustine described this explanation as:

But He instructed them, ….”Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

I can’t help but note that here and in the OCD passage Augustine puts forward a dichotomy. Carnal vs spiritual understanding or literal vs. figurative understanding. The RP view requires a third option being the “spiritual plus the otherworldly understanding” or the “figurative plus the otherworldly understanding.” In neither case does Augustine hint that there exists a “plus” to the spiritual and /or figurative understanding that he advocates.

For those holding to the promise of the eucharist, if that were to be merely symbolic, we can guess the Twelve, at least, could bear such an explanation even at that stage of their faith path. “You know, I mean I’m going to give you a bread. You will have to consider it a mere symbol of my body. That means you’re to eat my flesh” . End of the riddle and of the disheartening obscurity of the matter. ….

and I would say that, for those holding to the promise of the Eucharist, if the eating was to be of body that was present only in an otherworldly manner, we can guess the Twelve, at least, could bear such an explanation even at that stage of their faith path. (particularly since they would have been drawn by the Father) “You know, I mean I’m going to give you a body that is present in an otherworldly fashion such that your ‘consumption’ of that body is in no way cannibalistic. That means you’re to ‘eat’ my flesh, but you don’t really chew, swallow or digest any of my flesh” . End of the riddle and of the disheartening obscurity of the matter. …

In other words: the fact that no technical explanation is given, that a riddle IS left for the Twelve, IMHO strongly points to the RP understanding of the BOL.

IMHO, the fact that no technical explanation is given doesn’t serve the RP understanding b/c its technicalities are also left unexplained (and the RP view has more unexplained technicalities than does the symbolic view).

( even if BTW I must confess I still do not understand which conception you adhere to within the range of NRP views )

I only reject those views which (IMHO) add to the teachings of Jesus and of the apostles and tend to only actively oppose the additions where the proponents of that view categorize it as a required belief or where the belief is harmful (IMHO).

May God bless you.