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

[Radical]

I shall attempt to explain things differently, because it seems you have rarely understood what I was saying.

thanks for trying

Did you miss the many places in the Bible, indeed the primary revelation to Paul, that the Church IS Christ?

I have noted the places where the church is metaphorically called the body of Christ or the bride of Christ…the Bible clearly distinguishes between the church and Christ…one shouldn’t conclude that they are one and the same,…and when you declare that the Church IS Christ, you must be careful not to confuse those who are prone to inappropriate literalism.

Or the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth,…

now this is expressly stated

… that Paul speaks of the authority of the apostles as greater than the angels,

what angels did Paul have in mind…this message seems to have been lost on John the author of Rev, as the fellow wrongly falls at the feet of an angel so as to worship him (19:10). What about the author of Hebrews…isn’t he saying that a man is lower than the angels (2:7-9)?

… and that people are to follow what they teach because the Holy Spirit guarantees the inerrancy of their teaching,…

where is this expressly stated?..was it before or after Peter needed correction b/c of his hypocrisy?..was it before or after John needed correction b/c he was inclined to worship an angel?

…and how Paul instructs the Church on how to set up successors, following traditions passed on, etc.

I have also noted how the RCC has, at times, totally disregarded Paul’s instructions as to the qualifciations that an overseer must have…this is more than a little problematic for an institution that fancies itself to be the one, true church and claims to possess legitimate successors

If you ignore the Church you are ignoring Christ (there’s even a passage that says just that!).

a passage that states “just that”?..please provide the chapter and verse…but, of course you must know that (IMHO) the RCC is not the Church and so ignoring it isn’t ignoring Christ

Good luck with that.

none needed

The Catholic Church has no non-apostolic additions since it retains apostolic succession and authority.

this could be a valid claim or it could be a false self-serving declaration. You can take one option and I’ll take the other.

Seems it’s not all in Scripture, and indeed, even the Apostles didn’t remember everything, and how could they, when God is infinite?

exactly, the apostles couldn’t remember all things and those who came after the apostles possessed lesser abilities still. They were not eye witnesses. They weren’t marked by the signs of an Apostle. They were not possessed of infallibility. They made mistakes again and again.

Jesus becomes physically present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. If a person has a physical presence, we typically call it a body.

We call it a body b/c the physical component of the person is a body…a human body has certain features…limbs, a torso, a head. On the other hand, if God or his angel chose to appear to someone from the flames of a bush, that person would call it a burning bush and not a body. Or if the glory of God appeared in a cloud, it would be called a cloud and not a body even though a cloud is a physical thing.

We consume it. How is this not literal?

When you don’t and can’t chew it, when you don’t and can’t digest it, you are not consuming a body. You, however, do consume bread…you chew it, swallow it and digest it. You eat a grain product and not flesh.

Jesus becomes bread and wine.

Please reference this claim in official RC teaching. Para. 1375 of the CCC
states that the bread and wine are converted into Christ’s body and blood (as opposed to Jesus becoming bread and wine).
I have come to understand that with transubstantiation the substance of the bread ceases to be present…and therefore, I had thought that the RCC couldn’t claim that Jesus becomes bread b/c bread is no longer present. Please correct my ignorance of this teaching of Roman Catholicism by giving me the reference as I am beginning to think that your view is out of step with the RCC.

It is his physical body and blood. It need not be carved up human flesh to be so.

but a body needs the physical attributes of a body to be physically present in order for a physical body to be present

If Jesus chooses to incarnate himself as Bread and Wine, can’t the Bread and Wine be sensed?

again, this is a new RC slant for me…please provide a reference from official RC teaching that would have Jesus choosing to incarnate himself as bread and wine.

So communion is no different? Is it necessary? Why? Do the Sacraments actually “DO” anything special, or are they just neat forms of prayer and meditation?

It is a command to be obeyed. Sacraments edify…which is special. The Lord’s Supper is distinct from prayer and mediation b/c one does a different thing.

 

[Radical]

You misunderstood. The Eucharist is Jesus continuing to meet us physically, being with us physically. Since we are both physical and spiritual creatures, his promise to be with us would be half hollow if he abandoned us physically (a sphere that Satan otherwise has control over). God wants to be with us. In the Eucharist, He continues to be so.

Had God abandoned the physical world between the garden of Eden and the incarnation? Does the Holy Spirit not “dwell” within each and every Christians? Again it is only by your definition that one could suggest that God’s promise would be “half hollow” if he didn’t manifest a real bodily presence in the Eucharist.

Good. Then you should heed John 6 where Jesus promises that you will have eternal life if you eat his flesh and drink his blood. What do you think that means, otherwise?

As I had said, I agree with Augustine on this matter. He said:

“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.

Who’s abusing the English language now?

Augustine, apparently is abusing the Latin and I am abusing the English…that is, in your opinion. Augustine was rather consistent in this abuse as you can see from the Tractates:
In Tractate 26, which deals with John 6:41-59, Augustine says:

*But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you. …… And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. …. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof….**This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. *Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth].

A resurrection and eternal life that he says we only have if we eat his body and drink his blood. Or did you miss that? A body needs food and drink, and Jesus provides it in himself, food indeed and drink indeed…No physical interaction with a body? Jesus is still a person is he not? If he becomes bread and wine, and I interact with that bread and wine, then I am interacting with him, and he is physically present before me, with me, and even in me after I eat and drink.

before I address this and the rest of your post, I think I’ll wait for you to produce some evidence that your view accurately reflects the teaching of the RCC and that the RCC also thinks Jesus becomes bread and wine or chooses to incarnate himself as Bread and Wine.

 

[Radical]

First, what’s missing from the elipses in your quotations?

I guess I should have made the reference clearer so that you could check out the passge in full. OCD = On Christian Doctrine and bk III = Book 3.

You can find the passage here .

…and here are the two paragraphs that I quoted from:

**CHAP. 5.–IT IS A WRETCHED SLAVERY WHICH TAKES THE FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN A LITERAL SENSE. **

*9.But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”(2) For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. 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. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light. *

**CHAP. 9.–WHO IS IN BONDAGE TO SIGNS, AND WHO NOT. **

*13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, 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. *

Who was his audience?

Christians

Was he responding to anyone or a particular position?

He was giving instructions on how to understand scripture so that Christians “may not be led astray by ambiguous signs”.

Take your time and read the whole book…then tell me if you still think that your speculative response regarding “method and procedure of performing a ritual” still merits a reply.

 

[twohumble]

As you gave no Scripture references either, I will respond off the cuff as well. If we have a misunderstanding, we may need to get into the Scriptures or into Jewish tradition. Most of my understanding of the Passover from the Jewish perspective comes from Christian Jewish sources, and most directly summarized by Zola Levitt, who operated his own ministry for Christian Jews. So I refer to tradition as well as the original Scripture, placing it in its proper context.

Arandur:
I will try to show that Jesus was merely explaining the foreshadowing prophesy of His life and works on Earth as it relates to Salvation. The 7 questions I asked are out of Exodus and the scripture found for them is there. Its interesting you picked Zola Levitt, as thats the site I used to refute my friend elvis’s mandate about Matthew being written in Aramaic (it may have been, but we have no way to be sure).

The blood of the sacrificial lamb is placed over the house of the family (the household), indicating to the angel of death to passover. Similarly, Jesus’ blood serves that purpose for us, but in a full and complete way.

When you read the exact directions, as a Catholic you will appreciate that the blood is placed on the door posts, and lentil, in the exact same manner as you make the ‘sign of the cross’. Each door post, and the top lentil. Do you think this may symbolize the cross? Again, I am showing that this WHOLE ritual is a foreshadowing prophesy of Jesus. It is rife with symbolism and meaning that will unfold as the Covenant of Grace is manifest in Jesus Christ.

It was an indication of the Trinity. This is something that may not have been well understood by the Jews because it is not well explained until Jesus. Zola Levitt indeed says they do not know why the three, nor fully why one is hidden and brought out later. As it is said, the Bible is a book with the answers in the back.

Yes, each loave represented a part of the Trinity, 3 loaves 3 persons. The ‘second loaf’ was the second person. Literally? Not in the least. No more than the first loaf is literally The Father, or the third is the HS.
The aficoman is wrapped in Linen, just as Jesus was 'wrapped in Linen…the aficoman is buried or hidden, only to return…just as Jesus.
The Jews had no framework to understand the “Trinity”. Again, the unleaved or sinless bread was a symbol of the Trinity.

I don’t know about this “pet” business.

The Lamb was brought into the house so it was a ‘personal’ issue, not just some animal in the pasture.

I don’t recall them all well (Sanctification, Judgment, Redemption, Restoration?), but I believe there were four, and they all had specific purposes during the ritual. Scott Hahn delves deeply into these. I believe Jesus consecrated the third cup as his Blood, the Cup of Redemption. He did not finish the Passover meal, but halted before the final cup. Depending on your interpretation, he took this cup either on the cross, or is waiting to take it in Heaven. Zola Levitt speaks of the similar cup of betrothal in Jewish wedding rites, and how Jesus partook of his cup (the third) like the cup of betrothal, but waits for the last for his Bride the Church in Heaven, going to “make a place” for her (the Church) as Jewish men would build a house for their brides, at the completion of which the father of the bride certifies it as ready and allows the wedding to take place.

The cups are very intersting. In the Catholic Church, many Priests pick a family take home “Elijah’s cup” or the cup which heralds the coming of the Messiah. At a Passover, one seat is left empthy with the Elijah Cup, for the time Elijah comes back to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.
In addition one of the 4 cups is the “Cup of Salvation” always representative of the cup which symbolized ‘the liberation of Gods people’. Again, this cup always was a symbol of this, however, the Jews/Israelites view/viewed this as a liberation physically from their captors or oppressors. Jesus came to liberate us from our sins, and the Exodus from captivity which the Passover was to celebrate as an eternal ordinance, also to continue in the NT under the new covenant.
Notice, the entire celebration was a foreshadowing with imagery that conveys a deeper meaning.

 

[twohumble]

Leaven was symbolic of sin. Catholics require a clear conscience (freedom from mortal sin through Reconciliation and general confession of venial sin prior to Communion during the Mass) prior to receiving the Eucharist, clearing our “house” of all sin.

Leaven is symbolic of sin. Unleavened bread is pure, lacking the yeast “rot” that is leaven. Jesus is without sin, and thus is truly the unleavened Bread of Life. He is also striped and pierced like the bread of the Passover would be, due to its baking process.

The manna from heaven returning (as Jesus calls himself in John 6); Jesus’ birth (in the Place of Bread); and Jesus’ burial and resurrection (wrapped in linen, placed in a tomb, and resurrected out of it).

Ah, yes. Again, the Leaven was a ‘symbol’ of sin. Unleavened was a ‘symbol’ of ‘sinlessness’. Notice again, the symbolism rife within this sacrament.

All very strong foreshadowings of Christ and the reality of his being the Lamb and the Bread and the Wine of the Passover, that which the Passover was instituted to forecast and prepare us for. Why all this powerful connection to Christ if he was not to actually become the Lamb, the Bread, the Wine, and to be consumed physically as such? It makes little sense to relate such things to Jesus’ truth or doctrine or word (though he is also, of course, the Word) as some form of sustenance symbolized by bread. No, he tells us that he is truly food.

You are so right, it is exactly a foreshadowing. It is imagery that tells of a deep truth and meaning behind the symbol and images themeselves. They only represent what was the Hidden Truth, until Jesus revealed what it means at the ‘Last Supper’.
Nexts you leap to the conclusion that "he really becomes the Lamb, Bread and Wine’ when these were always meant as symbols for centuries. How do you come to that conclusion when Jesus was ‘teaching’ the hidden meaning of this ancient sacrament. You see the imagery throughout this feast, as your answers indicate, yet you depart from the imagery and symbolism at the very end, for no apparent reason.

I hope by comparing the Passover, and the NT, you can see this was ALWAYS imagery and symbolism related to the foreshadowing of Jesus. By knowing the OT Passover, it puts it in better perspective.

God Bless

 

[Arandur]

Ah, yes. Again, the Leaven was a ‘symbol’ of sin. Unleavened was a ‘symbol’ of ‘sinlessness’. Notice again, the symbolism rife within this sacrament.

You are so right, it is exactly a foreshadowing. It is imagery that tells of a deep truth and meaning behind the symbol and images themeselves. They only represent what was the Hidden Truth, until Jesus revealed what it means at the ‘Last Supper’.
Nexts you leap to the conclusion that "he really becomes the Lamb, Bread and Wine’ when these were always meant as symbols for centuries. How do you come to that conclusion when Jesus was ‘teaching’ the hidden meaning of this ancient sacrament. You see the imagery throughout this feast, as your answers indicate, yet you depart from the imagery and symbolism at the very end, for no apparent reason.

I hope by comparing the Passover, and the NT, you can see this was ALWAYS imagery and symbolism related to the foreshadowing of Jesus. By knowing the OT Passover, it puts it in better perspective.

God Bless

As I explained, all this foreshadowing was meant to show the truth of what Jesus was really doing, the Real Presence.

You say I have “no apparent reason,” yet I think Jesus’ words throughout the Gospels are pretty solid reasons, as well as the understanding of the Apostles in the Catholic Letters, and the Fathers of the Church. What reason do you have for discounting them?

Again, as the John 6 passage so beautifully illustrates, as well as the disciples on the road to Emmaus, if this were all just symbolism, why would people have had a problem with it and left Jesus? Why would the disciples not recognize him except in the Bread?

Deniers like to dodge and duck and weave those points, trying to attack on other fronts, acting as if these passages don’t exist. Yet I’ve never heard a one satisfactorily address these realities, and very few even try. So why don’t you? Why did Jesus’ audience in John 6 have such a hard time with his teaching? Why, if it were merely symbolism, did he not correct them? And why were the disciples able to identify Jesus in the Bread if his identity were not present in it?

 

[twohumble]

As I explained, all this foreshadowing was meant to show the truth of what Jesus was really doing, the Real Presence.

You say I have “no apparent reason,” yet I think Jesus’ words throughout the Gospels are pretty solid reasons, as well as the understanding of the Apostles in the Catholic Letters, and the Fathers of the Church. What reason do you have for discounting them?

Again, as the John 6 passage so beautifully illustrates, as well as the disciples on the road to Emmaus, if this were all just symbolism, why would people have had a problem with it and left Jesus? Why would the disciples not recognize him except in the Bread?

Deniers like to dodge and duck and weave those points, trying to attack on other fronts, acting as if these passages don’t exist. Yet I’ve never heard a one satisfactorily address these realities, and very few even try. So why don’t you? Why did Jesus’ audience in John 6 have such a hard time with his teaching? Why, if it were merely symbolism, did he not correct them? And why were the disciples able to identify Jesus in the Bread if his identity were not present in it?

Hi again
I guess my confusion with your (the catholic) position is that you leap into inferences that are not present. If I am correct, and you have even agreed, that the Passover was a foreshadowing, and if full of imagery and symbolism, then why would it not be the most logical conclusion that Jesus was explaining the full extent of meaning in this celebration?

Next, the people on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus because he was in His Glorified form, and clearly was hard to recognize. See many others reaction as well. Yet, this is another clear passage where Jesus unfolds OT Truths about Himself by explaining things to these men. The information Jesus discusses is again, full of OT imagery and foreshadowing.

Also, please be specific about what verses you think I am dancing around? Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life”…ok…again, this comes from the imagery of the Manna from Heaven…you had to take it in, ‘eat’ it…yet it is more logical that this is again, a foreshadowing of Jesus, who did not come to give sustanance to the body, but give ever lasting Life by giving “Spiritual Food”…Jesus is to the soul, what the manna in the dessert was to the body. This in no way implies Jesus becomes physical food. That is not at all implied by John 6.

Is there another verse?

Thanks

 

[Arandur]

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. Again, God continues to meet us and Save us on both the physical and the spiritual levels.

what angels did Paul have in mind…this message seems to have been lost on John the author of Rev, as the fellow wrongly falls at the feet of an angel so as to worship him (19:10). What about the author of Hebrews…isn’t he saying that a man is lower than the angels (2:7-9)?

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.

where is this expressly stated?..was it before or after Peter needed correction b/c of his hypocrisy?..was it before or after John needed correction b/c he was inclined to worship an angel?

You don’t understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility very well, do you? 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. So why do you grant Scripture such authority unquestioningly, but believe a lesser gift, a preservation from error (not even a positive gift of teaching well, like the Scriptures are typically taken to have), is denied to the Church?

I have also noted how the RCC has, at times, totally disregarded Paul’s instructions as to the qualifciations that an overseer must have…this is more than a little problematic for an institution that fancies itself to be the one, true church and claims to possess legitimate successors.

Who is omniscient when they make an appointment? 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.

a passage that states “just that”?..please provide the chapter and verse…but, of course you must know that (IMHO) the RCC is not the Church and so ignoring it isn’t ignoring Christ

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?

exactly, the apostles couldn’t remember all things and those who came after the apostles possessed lesser abilities still. They were not eye witnesses. They weren’t marked by the signs of an Apostle. They were not possessed of infallibility. They made mistakes again and again.

So you’re saying Jesus gave us no means of preserving his Truth and his Church? You’re claiming that Jesus is the fool who built a house on shifting sand though he knew the storm was coming, who built a tower without first counting the cost? For make no mistake, those who do not believe that Christ’s One True Church persisted in unity and truth throughout the ages from the time he first instituted it call him a fool.

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.

 

[Arandur]

We call it a body b/c the physical component of the person is a body…a human body has certain features…limbs, a torso, a head. On the other hand, if God or his angel chose to appear to someone from the flames of a bush, that person would call it a burning bush and not a body. Or if the glory of God appeared in a cloud, it would be called a cloud and not a body even though a cloud is a physical thing.

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. It has many meanings. We do not say that Jesus in the Eucharist manifests as a human body, but rather with the appearance of bread and wine.

When you don’t and can’t chew it, when you don’t and can’t digest it, you are not consuming a body. You, however, do consume bread…you chew it, swallow it and digest it. You eat a grain product and not flesh.

Why do you think we call it a “host?” It hosts Jesus’ Real Presence, in a manner that we can consume it.

Please reference this claim in official RC teaching. Para. 1375 of the CCC
states that the bread and wine are converted into Christ’s body and blood (as opposed to Jesus becoming bread and wine).
I have come to understand that with transubstantiation the substance of the bread ceases to be present…and therefore, I had thought that the RCC couldn’t claim that Jesus becomes bread b/c bread is no longer present. Please correct my ignorance of this teaching of Roman Catholicism by giving me the reference as I am beginning to think that your view is out of step with the RCC.

Incidentally, there’s a great quote by St. Ambrose about the Eucharist in 1375:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
Read 1376 and 1377, as well as 1413 vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm. These deal with the transubstantiation directly. You’ll note that they refer to the species of bread and wine, that these remain. The substance and reality becomes Christ, however, whole and entire, as Christ infuses them.

I know this is a difficult thing for those without the eyes of faith to perceive. Let me try another analogy. If Jesus is seen as a Lamb (as in Revelation), that is not just a lamb, is it? That is Jesus. Jesus is present in it, his identity perceived in it. Similarly if Jesus is a Lion.

but a body needs the physical attributes of a body to be physically present in order for a physical body to be present

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

again, this is a new RC slant for me…please provide a reference from official RC teaching that would have Jesus choosing to incarnate himself as bread and wine.

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*

 

[Arandur]

Hi again
I guess my confusion with your (the catholic) position is that you leap into inferences that are not present. If I am correct, and you have even agreed, that the Passover was a foreshadowing, and if full of imagery and symbolism, then why would it not be the most logical conclusion that Jesus was explaining the full extent of meaning in this celebration?

You seem to be missing the fact that the Passover was a meal. It is not consistent to say that the Lord’s Supper, where he identifies himself as the bread and wine and is the Lamb of God, would not also be a meal.

Next, the people on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus because he was in His Glorified form, and clearly was hard to recognize. See many others reaction as well. Yet, this is another clear passage where Jesus unfolds OT Truths about Himself by explaining things to these men. The information Jesus discusses is again, full of OT imagery and foreshadowing.

Read Luke 24: 13 onward again. They did NOT see the glorified Jesus; Jesus in his glory is radiant and astonishing. They thought he was merely another man, a stranger. Further, disciples and Apostles clearly recognized him in his glorified form. They may have thought he was a ghost at first, but that was just evidence that they did indeed recognize him, as did Thomas when he saw the wounds. Further, what is the point of the story, of them not recognizing him until the breaking of the bread, if it is not to show that his identity is IN that Sacrament, that through it their eyes are opened to him?

Also, please be specific about what verses you think I am dancing around? Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life”…ok…again, this comes from the imagery of the Manna from Heaven…you had to take it in, ‘eat’ it…yet it is more logical that this is again, a foreshadowing of Jesus, who did not come to give sustanance to the body, but give ever lasting Life by giving “Spiritual Food”…Jesus is to the soul, what the manna in the dessert was to the body. This in no way implies Jesus becomes physical food. That is not at all implied by John 6.

Here again, you take the peculiar position that God only tends to the spiritual, that the physical is beneath anything that is of God. Yet in the very Incarnation, Jesus showed us that God comes to us in the physical, as well, to be with us, to remain with us, to redeem us, even our flesh (in the bodily resurrection). It is this false, even Gnostic assumption that the flesh is evil that seems to make so many resistant to the idea that Jesus could actually be talking about something physical.

As for John 6, what do you make of 54-56 if not an actual eating? If it is an actual eating, it fits perfectly with this passage, and even brings about v56, with us in him and him in us, physically as well as spiritually. If not eating, is it studying? Praying? Merely believing? how do you get that?

Further, as he talks of the manna, he refers to a physical eating of that. In fact, the whole discussion takes place at the time of Passover, an actual meal. And what of verse 66? Why did those people leave him, if this was merely symbolic?

 

[Arandur]

Had God abandoned the physical world between the garden of Eden and the incarnation? Does the Holy Spirit not “dwell” within each and every Christians? Again it is only by your definition that one could suggest that God’s promise would be “half hollow” if he didn’t manifest a real bodily presence in the Eucharist.

Jesus came to correct the error of Adam and Eve. Would doing so not involve something physical?
Again, it is not my choice to have done things this way. God is the one who made it so that throughout the OT we are to be prepared to receive Jesus–who became one of us physically–as not just spiritual nourishment, but physical nourishment. Jesus’ body is the only one that has eternal life. By partaking of it in the Eucharist, we gain eternal life in our bodies, physically. If God did not provide a way for us to live eternally physically, we wouldn’t be talking about a bodily resurrection, but we would instead be just spirits divorced from bodies and therefore no longer human. Why do you think God didn’t provide a way to let us partake of Jesus and have his life physically, as well? Yes, we still die after eating the Eucharist, but so did Jesus. We follow right in his footsteps, and then rise to eternal life with our bodies in the final resurrection because, as Jesus explains in John 6, we have partaken of him, his eternal body, and thus have eternal life.

As I had said, I agree with Augustine on this matter. He said:

“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.

This is a part of it, yes. You seem to want to pick and choose only those of the many meanings of the Eucharist explained by Augustine that you find palatable, while rejecting any others where he explains the Real Presence. Heck, even Martin Luther understood and was honest enough to accept Augustine’s belief in the Real Presence.

Augustine, apparently is abusing the Latin and I am abusing the English…that is, in your opinion. Augustine was rather consistent in this abuse as you can see from the Tractates:
In Tractate 26, which deals with John 6:41-59, Augustine says:

But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you. …… And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. …. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof….**This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. **Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth].

I don’t see what you think here is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. For another thing, why even call it “body and blood,” if it is not?

 

[Arandur]

I guess I should have made the reference clearer so that you could check out the passge in full. OCD = On Christian Doctrine and bk III = Book 3.

You can find the passage here .

Thanks for the link. I don’t have time to read it all now. I noticed quite a few things from the full paragraphs however.

If the “Argument” is any accurate summary, I take note of the bolded passages:

The author, having discussed in the preceding book the method of dealing with unknown signs, goes on in this third book to treat of ambiguous signs. Such signs may be either direct or figurative. In the case of direct signs ambiguity may arise from the punctuation, the pronunciation, or the doubtful signification of the words, and is to be resolved by attention to the context, a comparison of translations, or a reference to the original tongue. In the case of figurative signs we need to guard against two mistakes:–i. The interpreting literal expressions figuratively; 2. The interpreting figurative expressions literally. The author lays down rules by which we may decide whether an expression is literal or figurative; the general rule being, that whatever can be shown to be in its literal sense inconsistent either with purity of life or correctness of doctrine must be taken figuratively. He then goes on to lay down rules for the interpretation of expressions which have been proved to be figurative; the general principle being, that no interpretation can be true which does not promote the love of god and the love of man. The author then proceeds to expound and illustrate the seven rules of tichonius the donatist, which he commends to the attention of the student of holy scripture.

1st & 2nd bold: the Catholic position is that this is a direct sign, and we use context and translation as part of our explanation of it, showing the distinct graphic physical imagery in both the NT and the OT.
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.
4th and 5th bolds: How is a literal interpretation inconsistent with purity of life or correctness of doctrine? 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.

**CHAP. 5.–IT IS A WRETCHED SLAVERY WHICH TAKES THE FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN A LITERAL SENSE. **

*9.But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”*How does the Real Presence kill?

quote For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. 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. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

Here is an example of what he is talking about. He is saying that the carnal subjection is to not look beyond the simple sign, the one day Sabbath, the limited sacrifice. 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.
[/quote]

 

[Arandur]

**CHAP. 9.–WHO IS IN BONDAGE TO SIGNS, AND WHO NOT. **

*13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. *
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, in us and we in him, the Church as his Body, all of us united in him through the consumption of this very Sacrament, the wedding feast of the Bride, the Incarnate baby born in the place of bread and placed in a feeding trough for us, indeed the whole truth of Christ and Salvation History bound up and made real in a single Sacrament.

Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome.

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.

To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.

Augustine gives these by way of explaining that we don’t have all the observances of the Jews, but a few simple and powerful Sacraments.

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.

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

 

[Arandur]

Arandur:
I will try to show that Jesus was merely explaining the foreshadowing prophesy of His life and works on Earth as it relates to Salvation. The 7 questions I asked are out of Exodus and the scripture found for them is there. Its interesting you picked Zola Levitt, as thats the site I used to refute my friend elvis’s mandate about Matthew being written in Aramaic (it may have been, but we have no way to be sure).

When you read the exact directions, as a Catholic you will appreciate that the blood is placed on the door posts, and lentil, in the exact same manner as you make the ‘sign of the cross’. Each door post, and the top lentil. Do you think this may symbolize the cross? Again, I am showing that this WHOLE ritual is a foreshadowing prophesy of Jesus. It is rife with symbolism and meaning that will unfold as the Covenant of Grace is manifest in Jesus Christ.

Yes, each loave represented a part of the Trinity, 3 loaves 3 persons. The ‘second loaf’ was the second person. Literally? Not in the least. No more than the first loaf is literally The Father, or the third is the HS.
The aficoman is wrapped in Linen, just as Jesus was 'wrapped in Linen…the aficoman is buried or hidden, only to return…just as Jesus.
The Jews had no framework to understand the “Trinity”. Again, the unleaved or sinless bread was a symbol of the Trinity.

The Lamb was brought into the house so it was a ‘personal’ issue, not just some animal in the pasture.

Ah, I see your point on the “pets.”

The cups are very intersting. In the Catholic Church, many Priests pick a family take home “Elijah’s cup” or the cup which heralds the coming of the Messiah. At a Passover, one seat is left empthy with the Elijah Cup, for the time Elijah comes back to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.
In addition one of the 4 cups is the “Cup of Salvation” always representative of the cup which symbolized ‘the liberation of Gods people’. Again, this cup always was a symbol of this, however, the Jews/Israelites view/viewed this as a liberation physically from their captors or oppressors. Jesus came to liberate us from our sins, and the Exodus from captivity which the Passover was to celebrate as an eternal ordinance, also to continue in the NT under the new covenant.
Notice, the entire celebration was a foreshadowing with imagery that conveys a deeper meaning.

Yes, I’m familiar with the Elijah tradition, as well.

I am in total agreement with you that the celebration was a foreshadowing. I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove. I think it points all the more strongly to the reality that Jesus becomes physically present in the Bread and Wine. That reality makes the foreshadowing all the deeper and more meaningful. Do you think all this is somehow inconsistent with the Catholic belief? Howso?

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
In the gospel of Matthew 26: 26-27 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread. and when he had said the blessing, he broke it and gave it ot his disciples. Take it eat this is my body.Then he took a cup and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, Drink from this all of you for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for the many, for the forgiveness of sins.

Quote= onenow1 Matthew’s gospel was written for Jew’s, I see not even a hint at sybolism here were you really might expect it if indeed it were only a symbol ?

Peace onenow1

 

[Jrush]

The Eucharist is the ULTIMATE relationship with God, my friend. It was important enough to Jesus to drive the point home several times in nthe same discourse.

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.

I keep hearing from Protestants what Jesus meant at the Last supper and in John 6 as opposed to what he actually said.
Which part of the following words of Jesus do you not understand?:
John 6:53-56
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.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my bloodhas eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

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!)

PS - The verses listed by Holly3278 were from the RSV (Revised Standard Version). She included this information with every verse she listed.

Thanks; much obliged.

 

[Jrush]

Hello Jrush and welcome to the fourms.

Actually Holly is quoting from the RSV, which is a Protestant Bible:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version

I use the RSV-CE which was adapted for Catholic use and love it.

Thanks for the info!

This is an understatement. There are Protestants who interpret the Bible differently than other Protestants as well though so you really can’t hold that against us Catholics.

Didn’t say I was, but good point nonetheless. LOL

As do some Protestants.

Yes, it depends on the Protestant, though: Liturgical or not?

(in defense of the many Protestant denominations out there, aren’t there different forms of Catholic worship as well?)

No, Protestants don’t take the Eucharist as symbolic. Some do that is for sure but it does not follow that by simply being Protestant some one is going to reject the Real Presence.

Same response as above! XP

That is a fair point. Let me ask you in a different way; does truth matter to you?

God bless you and welcome to the forums.

Thanks for the welcome; glad to be here!

And, of course, truth matters! But, where the Eucharist/Communion is concerned, it seems every type of church has a different form of truth.
Until we can all shut up and agree on something where it’s concerned and decide whether or not it is truly vital to one’s salvation, I think I’ll always be searching.

 

[IronHammer]

Well then, maybe you should avoid threads where the OP asks to hear from such Protestants…

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!

He meant exactly what he said…in a figurative manner

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

This is ridiculous…you yourself don’t think Jesus was speaking literally when he said that he was the true vine, or that he was the gate. Why can’t you just understand that I view the “this is my body” in the same fashion as you view the “I am the true vine” passage? You think a distinction should be made between those declarations and I don’t…It is no more daring for me to think that Jesus meant “this is my body” figuratively than for you to think that he meant “I am the true vine” figuratively…what is daring is to proclaim a miracle when nothing has happened. When Jesus healed, a visible and physical healing occurred. When he calmed the seas, a visible and physical calming occurred. When he changed water to wine, a visible and physical change occurred…When he allegedly becomes present at the RC Eucharist, no visible or physical change occurs…now there is a significant distinction that I am not prepared to dismiss…how daring of you to do so.

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. As such, it is the most sensible explanation! 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.

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. There is no context for Jesus to literally be a vine. But for Jesus to be the Bread of Life that can only come from Heaven and that is the only thing that can bring us physically into his presence. You meet him spiritually. I meet him physically and spiritually. I must say, it is quite a profound meeting, once you understand where you are!

 

[Arandur]

And, of course, truth matters! But, where the Eucharist/Communion is concerned, it seems every type of church has a different form of truth.
Until we can all shut up and agree on something where it’s concerned and decide whether or not it is truly vital to one’s salvation, I think I’ll always be searching.

I don’t believe there are different “forms” of truth.
Truly vital to one’s salvation? As you quoted elvisman: John 6:53-56
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.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my bloodhas eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

How much clearer can it get that whatever this means, it’s essential to your salvation?
Which is why this:

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.

would be an incorrect approach.

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?

The priest doesn’t. Jesus does, just as he did in the Last Supper, using just the same words because it is an actual participation in the Last Supper (just as the Jews recognize that their Passover is a participation in the actual, original Passover, as if they are all at meal together with those original Israelites at the same time). Jesus is the High Priest, and the one whose power effects all the Sacraments. The priest has no power of his own.
Speaking for Catholic belief, yes, we have faith that the Eucharist is Christ physically present in the Bread and Wine such that it becomes substantially his Body and Blood, just under the appearance of bread and wine. The reality of what it is is that it is his Body and Blood.

Let me try another analogy. This one is very crude, but perhaps it will illustrate a point. I recently saw a Food Network special where a meal was made to look like it was pizza, or meatloaf and potatoes, or various other savory entrees. The courses, though, were actually desserts, made from such things as ice cream and cake and fruit. The magicians for whom they made the “illusion” meal were quite impressed with how much like savory food the desserts appeared. So something can have one appearance, but really and actually be something else entirely.

Consider food a little further, and how thoroughly flavors are manipulated. Something can have its flavor masked, though it remains really something else. Like cough syrup or cherry pepto bismol, which tastes creamy and sweet but is really an antacid masked by some other flavor. A medicinal pill can be given a sugar coating, or even dispersed among food. It is still present. Again, something can have one appearance, be presented to our senses and our bodies one way, and actually be and effect something else.

 

[judechild]

Arandur, TwoHumble, Radical, IronHammer + all others participating:

This discussion has begun to go over my head; I think I’ll take some time to pray and just observe this thread. Thank you for the debate, and I hope to rejoin at a later time. In closing (for me) I will say that I still stand firmly with the Church in all matters and continue to acknowledge the Eucharist as the most Blessed Mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood. God bless you all.