Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

FOA, I dont know whether to laugh or cry from your statement?

many have that response to FoA’s post.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.verse 14:And the Word became Flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory,.

How did God create the universe? by his Word.

When the Word of God made flesh, said, by his Word, (speaking to the bread and wine) to his creation, “This is my body”, "This is my blood in the new and everlasting covenant.

Can you limit God to what he can do or not do in his creation?

If God said It, then why cant you believe it? it is his Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

Did not the Word of God made flesh, speak to the blind, raise the dead by his Word, heal the sick from a distance by his Word, displayed by a persons FAITH first.

Here is where I believe in Sola Fe theology, but my hyprocisy is only limited here,

I will end my discourse with a scripture to prove my point.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen, because of it the ancients were all attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, SO THAT WHAT IS VISIBLE (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible (body and blood of Jesus Christ).Scripture cosubstantiates with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

 

[Roy5]

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.

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

Two problems with the above.

(1) Christ is present everywhere at all times. Does any one dispute the fact that God is with us always? I was under the impression that all Catholics and other Christians accepted that.

(2) “Perfidious Jews”! Give me a break. Foul language regarding the kinfolk of Christ. I happen to have trouble with Israel and some of its cruel policies, frankly, but to label an entire group of people as perfidious is a prejudice I view as sinful. As for heretics, I’m grateful that they aren’t burned at the stake any more. Probably I would be judged one if I insisted on thinking for myself (as I do) and if you were running the religious and civil order. Praise God our Founding Fathers adopted the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, among other things. Somehow I don’t feel that our merciful Lord considers using our brains and honestly coming to different conclusions a big sin. Do you?

 

[Metaron]

Two problems with the above.

(1) Christ is present everywhere at all times. Does any one dispute the fact that God is with us always? I was under the impression that all Catholics and other Christians accepted that.

Yes, but He is physically present in Catholic Churches.

(2) “Perfidious Jews”! Give me a break.

“Perfidious Jews” is a phrase which is in no way anti-Semitic. It is “perfidious Jews” as opposed to the “faithful converted Jews.”

There are perfidious Gentiles too.

 

[GKC]

Yes, but He is physically present in Catholic Churches.

“Perfidious Jews” is a phrase which is in no way anti-Semitic. It is “perfidious Jews” as opposed to the “faithful converted Jews.”

There are perfidious Gentiles too.

And then there’s perfidious Albion.

GKC

 

[Metaron]

And then there’s perfidious Albion.

GKC

 

[cfrancis]

And where do you get the idea that your “bolded” part of the quotation was about Holy Communion?
That is not what I read here. When Augustine said “sacrifice”, he MEANT “sacrifice”, and not the Communion.

I posted in Post #19 a link to the full text of St Augustine’s letter.
I believe he makes himseld quite clear when the full portion of that paragraph is read.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3354973:

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.

**You are mistaking a rite for a service, these can be labeled as service to the uninformed person. The Mass is in no way a service, any Catholic who understands the Sacrafice of the Mass and the Word of God made flesh “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” The reason why the Mass is not a service is because, a service is done in time to conduct a bible study, or teaching of religious tones. The Mass is,( and I know you may not understand it , because The Believers of Jesus Christ understand when Jesus spoke of Spiritual realities, and no these are not symbolic, No Where in scripture is the Word Spirit taken to mean Symbolic).

THE MASS IS NOT A SERVICE PERIOD, PLEASE DO NOT REFER THE MASS TO A SERVICE IT IS AN INSULT TO THE BODY OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH. THANK YOU.

Please read the following scripture:
1Corinthians 2:-16 For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God…We have not recieved the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may UNDERSTAND THE THINGS FREELY GIVEN US BY GOD. And we speak about them not with words taught by HUMAN WISDOM, but with words TAUGHT BY THE SPIRIT, describing SPIRITUAL REALITIES IN SPIRITUAL TERMS.
Now the NATURAL PERSON DOES NOT ACCEPT WHAT PERTAINS TO THE SPIRIT OF GOD, for in him it is foolishness, and he cannot UNDERSTAND IT, because it is judged spiritually. The spiritual person, HOWEVER, CAN JUDGE EVERYTHING BUT IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDGEMENT BY ANYONE.
For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him? BUT WE HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST.

Chapter 3:1 “Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.”

Please brothers do not call the Mass a service, if you do not understand the Mass of its spiritual realities and implications to eternity, dont insult our Lord Jesus.

I hope Paul, and what little insight I can give you to understand, The Mass is not a service. I cannot emphasize this enough, without going into two days and two nights of spiritual explanations. **

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.

**Many of you claim what other Catholics believe, Please let them speak for themselves, nobody can take your word for that accusation, I dont know if you need to say this in order to confrim your opinion, just let your word stand on its own, or abide by God’s word.

You dont insult me when you say " I dont believe in the Eucharist is the body, blood,soul, divinity of Jesus Christ." Like Paul states, you are still and infant in Jesus, you have to grow in your christian walk, before you can consume solid food,( the True Eucharist) so for now, at least you drink milk by believing symbolically in the Eucharist, you are not far.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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?

**What you dont understand is that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. And God did not inflict death upon His Son, Jesus freely took it for you and me.

What one must understand the things of God are not our ways. God made a covenant with man, Man broke it. the covenant requires a death in order to free the other from the covenant. Death is the only way Gods covenant can be fulfilled when broken. So Jesus the testator to God’s covenant that required a death for all humanity, Who was without sin, became sin for our sake, God provided the perfect sacrafice for all eternity for those who will believe in his son Jesus himself. Jesus died for you and me, freeing us from eternal death.**

  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.

**Again you are not far from the kingdom of God. Remember Jesus did not have to be killed, Jesus went to his death willingly for you to save you from your sins.

John 3:12" If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 14, Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have EVERLASTING LIFE."**

 

[Roy5]

**

Again you are not far from the kingdom of God. Remember Jesus did not have to be killed, Jesus went to his death willingly for you to save you from your sins"

**

Hm! Still something bizarre about God killing himself in essence (suicide). You say that he went willingly. True. But he clearly resisted. “Let this cup pass from me.” How come God the Father would not listen to the plea of God the Son (one and the same essentially, right?).

The whole scenario is out of sinc with the concept of justice, logic, and common sense. Confused and confusing, too. I don’t have all the answers (as the Church claims to have) but I feel that the murder of Christ symbolizes all the evil cruelty that humankind has suffered, from wars to murders to rapes to tragic accidents etc etc. This brings us to the whole problem of evil, which no religion or philosophy has solved to my satisfaction.

An example. A kind father is walking along the beach. His son is drowning nearby. He doesn’t lift a finger to save him. (or, worse yet, he drowns him!). If God the Father either allowed Jesus to die - or destined that he should die - how moral is that? Why does God the omnipotent, who could stop wars - for example - in a moment, permit millions to die in them? Why Karfur? Congo? Iraq? the Holocaust? WWII? Etc. No religion offers a very good response to that. Perhaps the most logical is the Jehovah Witnesses’ idea - that Satan rules the world. But I reject that, too.
Even if that were true, why does a merciful God permit Satan to rule?

I probably am moving away from the thread, so I’ll stop here. My main point would be that we should honor various points of view on issues that involve such complex and perplexing matters. We may not agree, of course, but to denounce them as heretical and/or evil is silly.

 

[ibkc]

Hm! Still something bizarre about God killing himself in essence (suicide). You say that he went willingly. True. But he clearly resisted. “Let this cup pass from me.” How come God the Father would not listen to the plea of God the Son (one and the same essentially, right?).

The whole scenario is out of sinc with the concept of justice, logic, and common sense. Confused and confusing, too.

You are making some big mistakes here. For one, you do not understand the inter-relation of the three parts of the Trinity, but your biggest error is that you are viewing the Crucifixion as a 21st century cynic/rationalist, without taking into consideration the culture and the times in which Jesus lived and gave his teachings. In those primitive times, blood sacrifice was the norm for religious interactions with the gods. Even the Jews did it. Jesus came into that culture and wiped away the need for such sacrifices. That was the *point *of his willing death (not suicide). Take away the historical and cultural context and view it solely through the lens of hyper-rationality, 2000 years removed from the superstitious mindset of blood sacrifice, you have a big pile of nothing as you are finding out. If you make the effort to know where Jesus came from and why he did what he did, then it becomes easier to understand how his teachings and his sacrifice are relevant for all people, in all time periods.

That’s not to say that it’s impossible to understand the bigger picture and still reject it. But from the questions you are asking, I do not believe you are at that point.

 

[guanophore]

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, when did the false teaching start about the Eucharist? Why did not the successors of the Apostles “deal” with them? How come the record we have of 'dealing" are those who deny the real presence.

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.

Actually you are speaking about the “literalist” interpretation, which indeed, would be cannabalism. No, he meant what he said, that is why the Jews walked away.

 

[guanophore]

The Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice is thusia and thuo. The Greek word anamnesis does not mean sacrifice.

No, but a sacrificed animal was to be eaten durng the anamnesis.

It means to make present the events that occurred.

The sacrificial overtones come strictly from the Greek culture and was applied as seen in the eyes of Greek philosophers like Plato. This is how the teaching evolved because of the heavy Greek philosophical influence the church had in the beginning and it would have been easy for these people to see this in a sacrificial way.

This is nothing but modern man speculating about the past. Passover had nothing to do with Greek culture, which did not even EXIST at the time!

With regard to the passover when the Lord instituted this as a festival to be celebrated each year HE gave no terms in Hebrew referring to a sacrificial celebration of the passover. The Lord wanted all future generations to be reminded of the passover sacrifice made to HIM of the lamb and the blood that was placed on the doors.

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence!!!

The word does not mean make present. According to The Old/New Testament Greek lexicon based on Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, anamnesis simply means a remembering, recollection.

It is a type of remembering that includes re-enactment. Every year, the events were rehearsed in a scripted manner, so that the reality of what happened could be made present to each new generation.

Yes the events are made present in memory. The events are also very real in their memory. Just as the sacrifice Jesus gave us is very real in our minds.

How is that, since we were not there? How is that for the Jews, since they were not there either? You cant “remember” something you didn’t experience!

But there’s a big difference between remembering the sacrifice and re-performing it. The Jews don’t re-perform anything. It is all memorial.

And at each rememberance, a special ritual is followed to make the realization of what happened present to everyone. They eat the memorial sacrifice together.

You need to stop speaking for Jesus and implying that you are an expert at what he said. As if you had a direct hotline to HIM in Heaven.

It would be advisable if everyone could refrain from telling others what they need to do.

Yes he makes HIMSELF present spiritually. But he doesn’t place his flesh and bones inside the bread so you can sacrifice HIM over and over again. What part of “It is finished” don’t you understand. Remember when Jesus said that???

No, Catholics don’t believe this either.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3361233]
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.

So, when did the false teaching start about the Eucharist?

Second century.

Why did not the successors of the Apostles “deal” with them? How come the record we have of 'dealing" are those who deny the real presence.

It appears that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to name a couple who did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
Actually you are speaking about the “literalist” interpretation, which indeed, would be cannabalism. No, he meant what he said, that is why the Jews walked away.

If Jesus did not mean in John 6 to literally eat Him then what did He mean? Please keep your focus on John 6 only.

 

[cfrancis]

Responding to:

Why did not the successors of the Apostles “deal” with them? How come the record we have of 'dealing" are those who deny the real presence.

You stated:

It appears that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to name a couple who did.

Are you saying St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus “dealt” with those who began teaching the Real Presence?

I’m just trying to keep up!

 

[FaithofAbraham]

If Jesus did not mean in John 6 to literally eat Him then what did He mean? Please keep your focus on John 6 only.

It means to pray for and drink in God’s Spirit and lifeblood to lead you to do what he taught which is God’s Word.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[justasking4]

It means to pray for and drink in God’s Spirit and lifeblood to lead you to do what he taught which is God’s Word.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Would you say your view is metaphorical non-literal?

 

[justasking4]

Responding to:
You stated:

Are you saying St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus “dealt” with those who began teaching the Real Presence?

I’m just trying to keep up!

It appears the gnostics were taking some kind of literal view as far as i can tell.

 

[cfrancis]

Second century.

It appears that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to name a couple who did.

If Jesus did not mean in John 6 to literally eat Him then what did He mean? Please keep your focus on John 6 only.

It appears the gnostics were taking some kind of literal view as far as i can tell.

Thank you for clarifying!

 

[Metaron]

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches…

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

It’s funny that the Greeks (Orthodox) never had a heresy spring up saying the Eucharist was symbolic. You know why?

The Greeks know Greek. I’m sure they know what Jesus’ words meant. And they believe the Real Presence.