Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Since we are looking at the Didache, let us also consider:

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

At which point in the above does transubstantiation occur?

guanophore:

The Eucharist is a sacrifice. Now, since Christ was sacrificed once for all, how can this occur at the breaking of the bread? If sins will profane the sacrifice, how can this happen if it is not holy?

The Eucharist is a sacrifice for you, guanophore; for others, such as myself, it is the remembrance of the once for all sacrifice; it is holy, solemn, and serious, and the focus in the didache is not on the “sacrifice,” but on the condition of the heart of those attending the meal (cf Mt 5:23).

I cannot think of a single verse in the inspired Gospels, Acts, and epistles of the NT (to which the didache does not belong), where the word “sacrifice” is applied to the Lord’s Supper; isn’t that interesting?

IMO, you are presuming with respect to the word “sacrifice,” just as you do with the word
“key(s).”

 

[Roy5]

You are correct that God does not require the Sacrifices.
That said God does demand Justice and that through the sacrifices are sins are transfered form us to that which is sacrificed. Other wise we all a doomed to death and Hell for all have sinned thus is the sentence of sin.

There are other scarifies that are all made to God.

If we look to the Story of Cain and Able they took a portion of there work to offer to God in thanksgiving and gratitude for all that he had given. So the offering of sacrifice to God is not a pagan practice it a gift from the every beginning of time for God to us.

The Eucharist is the Supreme sacrifice of God himself in our Lord Jesus. For through the Blood of Christ sin is washed from us.

 Now, seriously, how just is it for God to inflict death upon his own innocent son to atone for our sins? Would you plan the cruel murder of your son so that others might be forgiven? Ridiculous. What sort of father would you be?

  Jesus told us to forgive one another 7 x 70 times, meaning always. Why would he be less forgiving? The whole notion of the vicarious atonement is a pagan idea. 

   Certainly Almighty God, our merciful Father, forgives people - Christians and, yes, others - who repent and seek to live a faithful and good life. The idea that his only Son has to be killed in a mean, evil fashion to provide us forgiveness is both ludicrous and morally reprehensible. I worship a kind and just God who apparently created us with a propensity to sin (else Adan and Eve wouldn't have sinned - a symbolic story, of course), and He is ready to wash away those sins when we genuinely seek forgiveness and, in many cases, 'make up' for those sins.

 

[Metaron]

At which point in the above does transubstantiation occur?

At the Words of Consecration.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice for you, guanophore; for others, such as myself, it is the remembrance of the once for all sacrifice; it is holy, solemn, and serious, and the focus in the didache is not on the “sacrifice,” but on the condition of the heart of those attending the meal (cf Mt 5:23).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is called a “sacrifice” in the Didache.

I cannot think of a single verse in the inspired Gospels, Acts, and epistles of the NT (to which the didache does not belong), where the word “sacrifice” is applied to the Lord’s Supper; isn’t that interesting?

But St.Paul says that you damn you own soul if you do not “discern the Body” and partake of the Eucharist. How could ordinary bread and wine condemn one to Hell? That would be nonsense, and you and I both know it. The Humanist Zwingli came up with the hokey symbolic view-- only it was just a reinteration of the Gnostics, who Ignatius of Antioch says:

… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Sorry, but I prefer the apostolic, early Christian view of the Real Presence to the hokey, humanistic view of Zwingli.

 

[SIA]

Dear Protestant bretheren, I have searched high and low, and I cannot find any theologian promulgating a symbolic view of the Eucharist, before the humanist Zwingli and a few Gnostics.

Could you answer the following questions for me?

(1) Please explain why the early Church and the Church Fathers, including the early ones, all accept a literal Real Presence and none accepted a “symbolic view”.

(2) Explain the passage from Irenaeus which says that the Gnostics were heretical because they didn’t believe in the Real Presence.

(3) Explain why many evangelicals and other Protestants accept the anti-sacramental memorialist view of the humanist Zwingli, as opposed to what the early Church apparently believed.

And please be charitable, Catholics and Protestants alike.

I don’t know about any of those because the Protestant church that I belong to believes that the Eucharist is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[sandusky]

Metaron:

But St.Paul says that you damn you own soul if you do not “discern the Body” and partake of the Eucharist. How could ordinary bread and wine condemn one to Hell? That would be nonsense, and you and I both know it. The Humanist Zwingli came up with the hokey symbolic view-- only it was just a reinteration of the Gnostics…

LOL. Notice that it’s not the “Body and Blood” which is not discerned, but the “Body” only (cf vv17-21). Notice as well that what they are eating, and drinking, Paul describes as “bread…cup,” and not “flesh…blood.”

…who Ignatius of Antioch says:… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Uninspired, and non-canonical.

 

[Metaron]

LOL. Notice that it’s not the “Body and Blood” which is not discerned, but the “Body” only (cf vv17-21). Notice as well that what they are eating, and drinking, Paul describes as “bread…cup,” and not “flesh…blood.”

And you point was…?

Uninspired, and non-canonical.

LOL, So the early Church just made it all up, and that the early Church leaders, who know the Apostles, just ignored what they taught and invented their own religion?

How’s this for canonical:

“MY BODY IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.”

Now your going to say that the early Church changed that as well, LOL.

 

[sandusky]

LOL, So the early Church just made it all up, and that the early Church leaders, who know the Apostles, just ignored what they taught and invented their own religion?

Please list all of the early Church leaders, by name, who knew the apostles, and who knew first-hand what they taught (with sources).

Metaron:

How’s this for canonical:

“MY BODY IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.”

Now your going to say that the early Church changed that as well, LOL.

I’ve gone through this on other threads concerning what is, IMO, your misunderstanding of Jn 6. I still hold the same opinion, to take the literalist view, as you do, is, IMHO, irrational.

 

[Metaron]

Please list all of the early Church leaders, by name, who knew the apostles, and who knew first-hand what they taught (with sources).

We have our lines of Apostolic Succession. Where are yours?

I’ve gone through this on other threads concerning what is, IMO, your misunderstanding of Jn 6. I still hold the same opinion, to take the literalist view, as you do, is, IMHO, irrational.

And I, Sir, hold that you are irrationally, undoubtably, (name removed by moderator)enetrably, INVINCIBLY IGNORANT.

 

[Metaron]

So what happened, as soon as the last disciple died, the early Church Leaders immediately drastically changed all of their doctrines and invented new ones and so on…? I guess then Jesus did break his Promise when He stated the Gates of Hell would not prevail agaist Church. In your view, the Church was destroyed from the very beginning and then re-appeared as the “Reformed” denominations 1,600 years later? Sheesh. I’m glad I don’t have such a dismal outlook on history.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Where does it say in these passages that only a priest can do this?

Well, answering you does it help you understand, or are you still prejudiced to the teachings of the Apostles. Now I will answer you from Jesus when he instituted the Eucharist at Passover, he taught his Apostles, and then he gave the apostles instruction on how they are to celebrate the new covenant, and consecrated them to do this, and at the resurrection, he gave all the power to excercise his ministry on earth, to which the Apostles handed it down through their successors, as Paul explained to the Corithian Church leaders.

Luke 22:14…17 Then he took a cup , gave thanks, and said, Take this AND SHARE IT AMONG YOURSELVES, For I tell you that from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes… Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to THEM, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you, do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”
Matthew 28:16…18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, GO, THEREFORE, AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. AND BEHOLD, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, UNTIL THE END OF THE AGE."

Now Jesus gave the apostles the authority and power only, to make disciples, and teach them to observe ALL that I have commanded you.

Hear Jesus makes them consecrated Priests to administer his sacraments through the Holy Spirit.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I SEND YOU.” And when he had sais this, he BREATHED ON THEM AND SAID TO THEM ( when was the last time God breathed into Man? yes at creation, He does it again here because he is recreating his apostles into Priests of his new and everlasiting covenant priesthood) “RECIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.” (NOW WHATCH WHAT JESUS DOES NEXT, HE GIVES THEM POWER TO EXCERCISE HIS OWN POWER ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN) WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE ARE FORGIVEN THEM, AND WHOSE SINS YOU RETAIN ARE RETAINED".

Who else can do such an action, unless given the power to do so on earth from God, the apostles, their successors, which are the Roman Catholic Pope (Peter) and Bishops, and ordained Priests, which are all consecrated life in the Lord Jesus.

I answered you not by my standards, but by Jesus himself, If you deny this, then you deny Jesus.

 

[sandusky]

We have our lines of Apostolic Succession. Where are yours?

The list of early church leaders who knew, and were taught first-hand by the apostles (with sources), please?

Metaron:

And I, Sir, hold that you are irrationally, undoubtably, (name removed by moderator)enetrably, INVINCIBLY IGNORANT.

That’s the kindest thing you’ve ever said to me.

 

[Metaron]

The list of early church leaders who knew, and were taught first-hand by the apostles (with sources), please?

St.John had a disciple named Polycarp who became the bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was probably 25-30 years old when John died. Polycarp himself lived until his was martyred around 156 A.D. Polycarp went to Rome about a year before he died to fight against various heresies that were there.

Polycarp is unique among the Church Fathers, because HE IS THE ONLY ONE to be a direct successor to any of the apostles. He is the only possible second century direct apostolic successor. While it is true that he only was a direct successor among the Church Fathers, Irenaeus and several others were second-generation successors to the Apostles. Strangely, they all believed the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession.

That’s the kindest thing you’ve ever said to me.

I was being as nice as possible.

 

[sandusky]

Polycarp; thank you.

 

[Metaron]

****Here’s what Ignatius, who knew and met St.Polycarp, personal disciple of St.John, said about the Eucharist:

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.

To the Smyrneans

That was the original quote I said awhile back.

 

[Metaron]

Polycarp; thank you.

Polycarp; you’re welcome.

 

[cascherman]

…who Ignatius of Antioch says:… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

it is JUST as reasonable to believe that Ignatius’ quote is a true representation of the early Christian belief as any secular historical item that you take as true. How do we know the ancient mayans and aztecs actually did perform human sacrifices? All we have is some pictures, and those certainly are not infallible and more so up to interpretation than words. For that matter let’s throw out all of history as non-scriptural and prone to falsehood.

I’ll tell you why you do not sound reasonable with your refusal to accept any quote other than scripture. How do we know that history happened the way we think it happened? We take as much information about a certain thing and discern if it agrees with itself or not. To deny that the early Church believed in the Eucharist is like denying that Constantine was emperor of the Roman Empire. There is too much evidence supporting it.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

Come on, if your argument has come down to dismissing historical evidence because it is not scripture don’t you see your starting to grasp for straws? Especially when scripture does not contradict the Catholic teaching.

 

[VARC]

Please list all of the early Church leaders, by name, who knew the apostles, and who knew first-hand what they taught (with sources).

Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a contemporary of St John the Apostle. He believed in the True presence of Christ in the Eucharist…

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”

Now instead of me cutting and pasting multiple quotes of the Fathers of the Church, who were much closer to the times of the Apostles than we, to support the traditinal belief, why don’t you tell us of the true early christians who denied the true presence. Got any names at all? If not, your accustions of apostacy don’t hold water.

 

[Metaron]

Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a contemporary of St John the Apostle. He believed in the True presence of Christ in the Eucharist…

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”

Now instead of me cutting and pasting multiple quotes of the Fathers of the Church, who were much closer to the times of the Apostles than we, to support the traditinal belief, why don’t you tell us of the true early christians who denied the true presence. Got any names at all? If not, your accustions of apostacy don’t hold water.

Well stated, VARC. Sandusky refuses to listen to anything I say.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel how was your service today?

**Catholics dont have services sir, that is an insult to my faith, please do not call my Worship a service , Call it what it is as the world has come to know it, the Mass, wedding feast of the Lamb, the Last supper, but dont call my worship a service this is an insult to God and his church. I dont insult your faith, dont ever call my worship a service. You can call yours what you want, but never call my Mass a service, because it is not that.

I’m waiting for your response in the other thread so we can continue our great conversation

I’m glad you posted this from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians because it is more suggestive of symbolic than real. Why? Very simple.

Notice Paul twice uses the word remembrance which in Greek is the word anamnesis. This often has been translated to have sacrifical overtones which would suggest the real physical presence of body and blood. But this is actually incorrect because the word simply means to recall, or call up to your mind, or reminisce.

Ok Deacon before, you discredit yourself again, and degrade your bible interpretations.

First of all Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, you are trying to fit into Jesus words to mean something by using a language he did not use here. Now do you know the transliterated word from the Aramaic and Hebrew, from the word rememberance or memory. Your Greek sir does not imply what the original word means, it is transliterated to remembrance or memory. but it is not the way you think it is. This word goes all the way back to Moses when he was given the Passover.

This word means to “MAKE PRESENT” not symbolic, you need to take your theology and research it, because it does not go far enough, because if it did, you will find yourself right smack in the middle of the Roman Catholic Church.

The anamnesis or memorial pertains to the prayers after the words of institution . This memorial is not merely a recollection of past events, they become through the liturgical sense made present or real, This is exactly how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt, every time the passover is celebrated, the exodus events are made present to the memory of the believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

You cant call a Jesus a Jewish liar, he knew what he was doing to fulfill the law of Moses and the passover. Dont say what you think Jesus said when you dont know.

So take your symbolic theology and throw it away when it comes to the words of Jesus Christ. He makes himself present in the memory of all believers, look up Catholic commentaries they give you the Truth through and through, your symbolic theology does not stand the test of time. Only Gods word does.**

 

[VARC]

Notice Paul twice uses the word remembrance which in Greek is the word anamnesis. This often has been translated to have sacrifical overtones which would suggest the real physical presence of body and blood. But this is actually incorrect because the word simply means to recall, or call up to your mind, or reminisce.

PEACE

The Greeks know how to interpret their own language. There is absolutely no tradition of the protestant understanding of the eucharist in the east ever.