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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
(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. 👍
 
Fun story about 1 Cor 11:27:

“Profaning” is a weak translation. It actually says “murdering”.

Now, how can you murder a symbol?
 
1 Cor 11:27 (Vulgate):
Itaque, quicumque manducaverit panem vel biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.
Click to expand...
Literal translation (the words in brackets either do not exist in Latin or are implied):
Therefore, anyone [who] chews [the] bread or drinks [the] cup [of the] Lord poorly, [the] defendant will be [guilty of murdering the] flesh and blood [of the] Lord.
Click to expand...
Saint Paul combines the reception of the consecrated bread and wine (“Therefore, anyone who chews the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord”) with the law (“the defendant will be guilty of murdering the flesh and blood of the Lord”). “Defendant” implies the person is being tried, and the court sentence (“guilty of murdering”) is left out, because Paul assumes the Corinthians are familiar with what the law says.

But if the Eucharist is just a symbol, than Paul cannot charge anyone who eats or drinks it guilty of murder. So the Eucharist must be a person. Paul gives very strong evidence that he believes the Eucharist is indeed a person: the Lord Jesus Christ. He uses the words “manducaverit” (to chew) and “biberit” (to drink), the same words which Jesus used when He spoke to the crowd about His Body and Blood (“he who eats (manducaverit) my flesh and drinks (biberit) my blood has eternal life”). The word “manducaverit” implies flesh - to chew on human flesh - and the word “biberit” implies wine - to drink wine. This is why the Jews were very offended by Jesus’ words. They considered Him a mere human being, not God, and so they thought He was telling them to commit cannibalism: to chew on his flesh and to drink his blood. Paul must have learned these words from the other Apostles, who had been with Jesus throughout His ministry, and so, he decided to use them in his letter to the Corithians, to emphasis on the truth that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and that whoever eats or drinks His Body or Blood unworthily is guilty of murder.

Yet some believe this is impossible. “Jesus is risen, how then can He die again?” They believe the person literally kills Jesus by receving Him unworthily. But this is not what Paul says. Paul doesn’t say the person will actually kill Jesus - rather, the person will be found guilty of killing Jesus. There is a difference. The former presupposes that Jesus can die, which is not possible: He is risen. The latter presupposes that Jesus has died, which is true: He died on the Cross. Hence, those who receive Jesus unworthily are guilty of crucifying Jesus.
 
And don’t forget 1 Corinthians 10:16 where is says we share in the body and blood of Christ.
 
Eucharisted said:
Fun story about 1 Cor 11:27:

“Profaning” is a weak translation. It actually says “murdering”.

Now, how can you murder a symbol?
Click to expand...
(first of I agree with the Eucharist, and I’m not a protestant but I like being a devil advocate:p)

So God is dead? You can murder God?
 
Not all Protestant traditions think the Eucharist is merely a symbol.
 
Polaris said:
(first of I agree with the Eucharist, and I’m not a protestant but I like being a devil advocate:p)

So God is dead? You can murder God?
Click to expand...
You’ll have to ask Jesus that, since He died on the Cross.
 
Indeed, some Protestant faiths hold firmly that Christ is well and truly present at the Eucharist, but that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. I believe “consubstantiation” is the term (happy to be corrected on that).

I must confess that I find the idea of Eucharistic transubstantiation to be utterly bizarre. I guess that’s why I haven’t taken communion these many years and therefore can never call myself a “real” Catholic.
 
hansard said:
Indeed, some Protestant faiths hold firmly that Christ is well and truly present at the Eucharist, but that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. I believe “consubstantiation” is the term (happy to be corrected on that).

I must confess that I find the idea of Eucharistic transubstantiation to be utterly bizarre. I guess that’s why I haven’t taken communion these many years and therefore can never call myself a “real” Catholic.
Click to expand...
AS A FORMER LUTHERAN I CAN TELL YOU THAT CONSUBSTANTIATION IS NOT A LUTHERAN TERM or Doctrine, its exact origin I am not sure of but it is erroniously applied to Lutheran teachings
 
Steady, now. I didn’t say it was Lutheran.
Having done some quick research just now, I may have been off the mark with the term “consubstantiation”–perhaps “Real Presence” (but NOT transubstantiation) is a better term to use regarding Protestant beliefs?
 
Hansard:

I would agree with you about the use of Real Presence. But I caused such a stir on another thread with this, that I fear saying anything.

How about this: Jesus is really present at the Eucharist. The science and philosophy isn’t important!

O+
 
hansard said:
Indeed, some Protestant faiths hold firmly that Christ is well and truly present at the Eucharist, but that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. I believe “consubstantiation” is the term (happy to be corrected on that).

I must confess that I find the idea of Eucharistic transubstantiation to be utterly bizarre. I guess that’s why I haven’t taken communion these many years and therefore can never call myself a “real” Catholic.
Click to expand...
You’re more “real” than the Catholics who have doubts about the real presence, but go ahead and take the Eucharist anyway. Honesty is a virtue. If you can’t bring yourself to believe in it right now, that’s okay… but might I suggest just one hour of eucharistic adoration? It might help, if you’re interested. 👍
 
O.S.Luke said:
Not all Protestant traditions think the Eucharist is merely a symbol.
Click to expand...
This is true. However, absolutely no Protestant denomination has the actual Eucharist. No Protestant tradition, not even Lutheran or Anglican/Episcopalian has valid apostolic succession and therefore they cannot have the actual valid Eucharist.
Eucharisted said:
You’ll have to ask Jesus that, since He died on the Cross.
Click to expand...
Great answer Nick! 👍 Of course God can be murdered. Jesus is God and He was murdered!
hansard said:
Indeed, some Protestant faiths hold firmly that Christ is well and truly present at the Eucharist, but that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. I believe “consubstantiation” is the term (happy to be corrected on that).

I must confess that I find the idea of Eucharistic transubstantiation to be utterly bizarre. I guess that’s why I haven’t taken communion these many years and therefore can never call myself a “real” Catholic.
Click to expand...
Yes, some Protestant denominations do hold to the real presence. However, not a single Protestant denomination (that I know of) has valid apostolic succession and therefore cannot have the true and valid Eucharist.
 
Is Apostolic succession necessary for a valid Eucharist?
It would be harsh to denounce Protestant Eucharistic traditions as invalid if they believed in the Real Presence, or consubstantiation, or even full transubstantiation, simply on the grounds of their not having apostolic succession.
 
hansard said:
Is Apostolic succession necessary for a valid Eucharist?
It would be harsh to denounce Protestant Eucharistic traditions as invalid if they believed in the Real Presence, or consubstantiation, or even full transubstantiation, simply on the grounds of their not having apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Yes, apostolic succession is absolutely necessary for a valid Eucharist! I am not sure where to link you to for a source for this information but I know for a fact that one must have valid apostolic succession in order to consecrate the Eucharist.
 
Polaris said:
So it is your belief that Christs Divine Nature died on the Cross?
Click to expand...
It is our belief that Christ, the one person with two natures, died on the cross. As for His nature… a nature cannot die, because it is not a person. A rabbit may be dying, but the fact of what it is - “rabbithood” or the rabbit’s nature - is not being harmed or destroyed. When the rabbit is dead, it’s the whole rabbit that’s dead, nature and all.

On the other hand, Christ had the power to die and then be raised again by His own power, which is spoken of by the early Church fathers as a sign of baptism. I’ll paraphrase a bit from St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Christ had the power to go down into the earth, and to rise again. We now imitate that action by going down into the earth, from which we have the power to rise again. We all just do what we can. 😃
 
judechild said:
It is our belief that Christ, the one person with two natures, died on the cross. As for His nature… a nature cannot die, because it is not a person. A rabbit may be dying, but the fact of what it is - “rabbithood” or the rabbit’s nature - is not being harmed or destroyed. When the rabbit is dead, it’s the whole rabbit that’s dead, nature and all.

On the other hand, Christ had the power to die and then be raised again by His own power, which is spoken of by the early Church fathers as a sign of baptism. I’ll paraphrase a bit from St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Christ had the power to go down into the earth, and to rise again. We now imitate that action by going down into the earth, from which we have the power to rise again. We all just do what we can. 😃
Click to expand...
Excellent answer Judechild! 👍 I wasn’t sure how to answer the question myself so I left it to someone more knowledgeable than I and look! Someone more knowledgeable came along and answered it! :D:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top