Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

**I agree with you sandusky it is irrational, who can accept or understand this saying of Jesus in John 6. even his other disciples left him, because he meant what he said, litterally, did Jesus call them back and say “hey dont go, I was just kidding I meant eat my body and drink my blood symbolically”, but Jesus did not do this, He let them go because they could not accept his teaching or his words literally.

Now a Catholic and the Apostles, they believe his words, because we be believe Jesus is the word of God made flesh, and If God said it then I will believe it. Sounds evangelical:

But I would like to clue you in on how they did not accept Jesus words either they went away and left him, with his apostles.

To come to believe in God’s words you must be born (anothen) from above, into his body the Catholic church inorder For the Holy Spirit to help you. So I can see your unbelief, many did not believe him when he was right there in front of him. The things Jesus speaks of are Spirit and not of the flesh. Spirit meaning the eternal reality, not the temporal reality of the flesh. It does not mean symbolically.**

 

[sandusky]

…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.

True presence. So, we have true presence, real presence, spiritual food, transubstantiation, and who knows what else.

There was never a clear consensus as to what went on with the Eucharist with respect to that; there were differing explanations, theories, names right up to time the Church declared the Eucharist to be transubstantiation—now, and forever. And where have I said anything about apostasy; do you read into the early church writings the way you read into my statements?

cascherman:

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.

I’m grasping at straws? Post anything you want from the ECF concerning “true presence, real presence, spiritual food,” and the other titles and theories bandied around. There never was “unanimous consent” until the church said “it’s transubstantiation, end of discussion.”

cascherman:

To deny that the early Church believed in the Eucharist…

You’re begging the question by assuming transubstantiation! And, I never said the early church didn’t believe in the Eucharist; you too, probably read your assumptions into the fathers, as you read them into what I say.

What drives you nuts, IMHO, is that others can read the scripture, the ECFs, and church history, and arrive at a different conclusion than you. Deal with it.

 

[Metaron]

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.

Good point, VARC… perhaps it was a language problem that led some of the more ignorant Protestants of the “Reformation” to accept the symbolic view.

 

[Metaron]

What drives you nuts, IMHO, is that others can read the scripture, the ECFs, and church history, and arrive at a different conclusion than you. Deal with it.

I doesn’t drive me nuts that your ignorant and unread. Or that you don’t understand the illogicalness of your position. You deal with it.

 

[VARC]

And where have I said anything about apostasy; do you read into the early church writings the way you read into my statements?

Transubstantiation is the Latin explanation for the True Presence that the Orthodox view as defective. But both the Latins and the Orthodox are in agreement with the Fathers that Christ is present in the Eucharist as opposed to the symbolic protestant view. You still have yet to cite a single Father in support of the merely symbolic Eucharist. There is unanimous patristic conscent that Christ is present in the eucharist whether you wish to believe it or not.

 

[Roy5]

Deacon110;3353310:

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 guess I don't understand your emotional outburst re Mass and service. (1) Service is a generally-accepted term for religious services of any religion. Some Catholics use it interchangeably with Mass, especially in dealing with non-Catholics. (2) Catholics have various services that are not Masses, that do not include the Eucharist.

 As I wrote in an earlier posting, I have great difficulty believing that the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Symbolically, okay. But actually? That concept was acceptable to the medieval world full of superstition but I for one find it untenable in our modern age, Sorry about that. I find that many other Catholics feel as I do.

 

[guanophore]

At which point in the above does transubstantiation occur?

At the point where the angels take the bread and wine from the altar, carry it to heaven, and replace it with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice for you, guanophore;

My point is that it has been a sacrifice since Good Friday. Jesus did not give His “symbolic” flesh and blood for the life of the world. He gave His real flesh, and His real blood, shed for our sins.

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).

Perhaps we are only having a semantics problem here. the rememberance of the once and for all sacrifice is the Mass. If you remember, at the rememberance meal that pre-figured the Lord’s supper, the participants ate the real flesh of the Lamb. There is no reason to separate the condition of the heart from the sacrifice. the Mass is the moment in which the two are united.

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? :hmmm:

You don’t remember John 6, where Jesus promised to give His flesh for the life of the world? Don’t you consider what He did a sacrifice? Why is He called the Lamb?

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

We only hold to the Traditions that were passed on to us by the Apostles. They considered it a sacrifice, as did all the early fathers. This is also clear in the book of Hebrews, where Jesus is honored as the supreme sacrifice.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

Are you plagued by a mocking spirit? In fact, Paul is clear that one who approaches in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. How can someone profane something that does not exist?

Uninspired, and non-canonical.

Indeed, but a very good historical commentary on what was believed by the early Church. How do you think the Church got off track so quickly?

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

Too lazy to do your own homework?

I had a whole semester course in this at seminary…I recommend it.

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.

I agree entirely. I think this is EXACTLY why the Jews walked away. This doctrine is a matter of faith, and I don’t even think the Apostles understood it…not even when he actually GAVE them his Body and Blood at the last supper, or even at the crucifixion. This is why Jesus kept telling them “the flesh is to no avail”. This is a spiritual truth that cannot be apprehended with the fleshly mind, which cannot discern spiritual things.

 

[guanophore]

 I guess I don't understand your emotional outburst re Mass and service. (1) Service is a generally-accepted term for religious services of any religion. Some Catholics use it interchangeably with Mass, especially in dealing with non-Catholics.

I have never heard of such a thing! Referring to Mass as a “service” would be degrading to the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Non-Catholics call it the gathering a “service” because the True Presence is not there.

(2) Catholics have various services that are not Masses, that do not include the Eucharist.

I agree with this. Especially during Lent, there are a number of penitential services.

    As I wrote in an earlier posting, I have great difficulty believing that the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Symbolically, okay. But actually? That concept was acceptable to the medieval world full of superstition but I for one find it untenable in our modern age, Sorry about that. I find that many other Catholics feel as I do.

You have plenty of company. Beginning with the perfidious Jews, and going forward with all the heretics and aposticized throughout the last two millennia.

If a “Catholic” professes not to believe, then they are not really Catholic. they may think they are, but they have fallen away from the faith.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3356085]
Originally Posted by Roy5
I guess I don’t understand your emotional outburst re Mass and service. (1) Service is a generally-accepted term for religious services of any religion. Some Catholics use it interchangeably with Mass, especially in dealing with non-Catholics.

guanophore
I have never heard of such a thing! Referring to Mass as a “service” would be degrading to the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Non-Catholics call it the gathering a “service” because the True Presence is not there.

Service for the mass is an appropiate term. Roy5 is right and here is a definition of it–public worship ceremony: a religious ceremony usually involving specific forms for worship and prayer. Under this definition the Mass would qualitfy as a service.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3356008]

Indeed, but a very good historical commentary on what was believed by the early Church. How do you think the Church got off track so quickly?

False teachers and teachings were allowed in and not dealt with. We can already see the apostles themselves in the NT dealing with them. The false teachers continue through the centuries and have influenced the church at various times.

Too lazy to do your own homework?

I had a whole semester course in this at seminary…I recommend it.

I agree entirely. I think this is EXACTLY why the Jews walked away. This doctrine is a matter of faith, and I don’t even think the Apostles understood it…not even when he actually GAVE them his Body and Blood at the last supper, or even at the crucifixion. This is why Jesus kept telling them “the flesh is to no avail”. This is a spiritual truth that cannot be apprehended with the fleshly mind, which cannot discern spiritual things.

If Jesus was to be understood “literally” in these passages then you have a form of cannibalism. Such an understanding would be absurd. Rather He was speaking metaphorically than literally.

 

[Metaron]

False teachers and teachings were allowed in and not dealt with. We can already see the apostles themselves in the NT dealing with them. The false teachers continue through the centuries and have influenced the church at various times.

So I guess Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Sorry, but I believe Jesus’ words over yours.

If Jesus was to be understood “literally” in these passages then you have a form of cannibalism.

Oh, so you’re only a symbolic cannibal, then?

Such an understanding would be absurd. Rather He was speaking metaphorically than literally.

Like the people in John 6, you choose to not accept what Christ said about His Body and Blood. You’re just like them.

I choose the true teaching of the Apostles and the primitive Church, that Christ is Really Present, over some hokey “Memorialist” view of the humanist Zwingli.

 

[justasking4]

Metaron;3356971]
Originally Posted by justasking4
False teachers and teachings were allowed in and not dealt with. We can already see the apostles themselves in the NT dealing with them. The false teachers continue through the centuries and have influenced the church at various times.

Metaron
So I guess Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Sorry, but I believe Jesus’ words over yours.

Here is what the word “prevail” means in context–To be strong against someone, prevail against or over. Used in a hostile sense, meaning to overcome, vanquish (Matt. 16:18). Now we know the church has not been vanquished even with all the evil it has done in the name of Christ. We also know from Scripture never promised the church would be immune from false teachings for the mere fact that Scripture warns of false teachers coming into the church itself to decieve many. We see this in the catholic church and in some protestant churches.

Quote:
If Jesus was to be understood “literally” in these passages then you have a form of cannibalism.

Metaron
Oh, so you’re only a symbolic cannibal, then?

No, but if we take the catholic view thats what you end up with.

Quote:
Such an understanding would be absurd. Rather He was speaking metaphorically than literally.

Metaron
Like the people in John 6, you choose to not accept what Christ said about His Body and Blood. You’re just like them.

Not so. If we take the literal view as it seems you believe you are drawn the conclusion that i previously stated.

I choose the true teaching of the Apostles and the primitive Church, that Christ is Really Present, over some hokey “Memorialist” view of the humanist Zwingli.

Forget the “hokey “Memorialist” view of the humanist Zwingli” and deal with the entire texts of Scripture and you will see that they don’t support you.

 

[Metaron]

Here is what the word “prevail” means in context–To be strong against someone, prevail against or over. Used in a hostile sense, meaning to overcome, vanquish (Matt. 16:18). Now we know the church has not been vanquished even with all the evil it has done in the name of Christ. We also know from Scripture never promised the church would be immune from false teachings for the mere fact that Scripture warns of false teachers coming into the church itself to decieve many. We see this in the catholic church and in some protestant churches.

Um, actually, St. Paul called the Church the “Pillare and Bulwark of Truth.”

No, but if we take the catholic view thats what you end up with.

It’s funny, that the Pagans also leveled the “cannibalism” charge against the early Church.

Either way, if you call Catholics cannibals, then that means your a “symbolic” cannibal. LOL.

Not so. If we take the literal view as it seems you believe you are drawn the conclusion that i previously stated.

Um, no. You have nothing to back up your presupposition of early apostasy (during St.John’s lifetime even!) and you have virtually no scriptural support for your made-up Zwinglian view.

Forget the “hokey “Memorialist” view of the humanist Zwingli” and deal with the entire texts of Scripture and you will see that they don’t support you.

LOL. It’s sad and funny, that as a Protestant, I never heard one single sermon on John 6.

When I did see “the entire text of Scripture”, guess what? I knew that the Real Presence is fully Scriptural, backed by the Fathers of the Church, by eccesiastical history, as well as it was the view of the Church throughout 1,600 years,

So, believe what you want, but the odds are stacked in favour of the Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, (and Lutheran) position of a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Unlike Zwingli.

 

[cfrancis]

Is it a common non-Catholic defense of the symbolic nature of Christ’s Words in Jn 6 to refer to the following passages?
Gen 9:4
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Leviticus 3:17
‘It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’"

Leviticus 7:26-27
’ You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings. ‘Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people.’"

Leviticus 17:10
’ And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 17:12
"Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’

Leviticus 19:26
'You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.

Deuteronomy 12:23
"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

 

[VARC]

False teachers and teachings were allowed in and not dealt with. We can already see the apostles themselves in the NT dealing with them. The false teachers continue through the centuries and have influenced the church at various times.

Do you care to elaborate on your accusation by supporting it with some facts. Who made up the True presence? When and where? What christian defended the symbolic view? Documentation? On what basis do you hurl these accusations at the Church Fathers?

If Jesus was to be understood “literally” in these passages then you have a form of cannibalism. Such an understanding would be absurd. Rather He was speaking metaphorically than literally.

Or you can understand it in the Orthodox manner of a mystical reality that is beyond human understanding. Westerners…always trying to explain the unexplainable.:tsktsk:

 

[Metaron]

Do you care to elaborate on your accusation by supporting it with some facts. Who made up the True presence? When and where? What christian defended the symbolic view? Documentation? On what basis do you hurl these accusations at the Church Fathers?

I second that notion.

Or you can understand it in the Orthodox manner of a mystical reality that is beyond human understanding. Westerners…always trying to explain the unexplainable.:tsktsk:

LOL, I’m beginning to agree with you about that, VARC.

I’m beginning to see how beautiful Orthodoxy is…

 

[Deacon110]

=Gabriel of 12;3354973]

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.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

Although It is wonderful and a very nice way to believe It is not biblical.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=Gabriel of 12;3354973]