Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[Metaron]

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

Um, no. As a matter of fact, they believed in symbol only. Listen to what St. Ignatius said.

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox [Gnostics] 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.

 

[Metaron]

Second century.

That date’s quite arbitrary.

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

Ignatius of Antioch

“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” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). *

 

[cascherman]

Well, I do believe those quotes right above annihilate any argument justasking had that irenaeus and justin martyr did not believe in real presence. That is actually some of the more blatantly obvious quotes I have seen.

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

Nice work Metaron. I have yet to be supplied a quote supporting a symbolic Eucharist.

Irenaeus:

“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.”

Wow, explicit. Ignatius says the Eucharist that we take is the very flesh and blood that suffered for our sins.

Justin Martyr:

“but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”

Anyone want a verse proving transubstantiation? Here it is. “…the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him,…”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

---

Hm! Still something bizarre about God killing himself in essence (suicide). You say that he went willingly.

Jesus did not kill himself, he was crucified for you and me.

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?).

**This is a fulfillment of the suffering servant from the prophetic psalms. Every thing Jesus did he had to fulfill the law and the prophets before he was put to death for our transgressions. Jesus ask to “let this cup pass from me” to show in the next verse he was to do the Will of God who sent him, not his will. If you really want to get deep theologically, Jesus was speaking from his humanity, acknowledging the Father as the Son in the Holy Spirit. Jesus suffered in his humanity so that you dont have too. You cannot accuse God of not loving you, when he gave up his only son for you in suffering in his humanity, and dieing in his humanity. Jesus suffered this, so that when we follow him to our grave he promises to be there with you, so that death cannot hold you neither the father of lies. That is why he died and rose from the dead so that Christians do not fear death, but welcome it as Gods will be done.

As Paul states in Sacred Scripture, “To live is Christ, to die is gain”.**

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.

I can understand your dilema. Recall the early Christians, how they went to their deaths for being Christians, for refusing to offer sacrafices to the Ceasars who thought of themselves as a god, they considered Christians “atheists” believe it or not, because Christians did not believe in the Roman false gods. So Ceasar would kill them for sport, because the Christians were consuming their God, in form of bread and wine, and that was treason.

 

[cascherman]

** apologies on the above, I used the wrong name for ignatius’ quote, and actually Metaron supplied Ignatius’ quote instead of Irenaeus, well here is Irenaeus:

“When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Three is better than two right?

Second century.

As Metaron says, a rather arbitrary reponse, any substantiation for that?

And you do know the 2nd century starts a mere 67 years after Christ’s death and John is thought to have been alive for 10 of those years?

This doesn’t seem a little ludicrous to claim that once the last apostle wasn’t watching everyone decided to screw it up within a few years?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

---

continued;

Why did the Christians freely accept martyrdom, to help remove the evil of the world. Remember the St. Steven the first Christian martyr, he prayed to God, to forgive them, who were killing him. So that evil can be resisted and defeated, and it was, look at the result from his martyrdom, St. Paul converted the Gentiles of his day to Christianity, Who was a persecuter of the body of Jesus Christ.

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?

On the natural level it is incomprehensible. On the level with God when it comes to souls living in eternity. I am grateful for His Son Jesus for dieing for me, so that I may have life eternally with him.

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?

**Because God is a just God, he is the Father of his creation the universe including you and I. God has given me and you a free will including the Angels. God is just to all his creation, no one can deny him that.

Hebrews 10:31 “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” verse 38,39 But my just one shall live by faith, and if he draws back I take no pleasure in him, We are not among those who draw back and perish, but among those who have faith and will possess life.**

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.

**There is only One God, and there is only one Truth. And Truth does not change not in this life not even in death. As long as we are dealing in matters of Truth, they will stand the test of time. The Eucharist has, it must be Truth. Many false teachers and prophets will come and go, but you can count on the One Holy Catholic (universal) Apostolic church, always believing in one Lord, one Baptism, One Church and one faith.

Peace be with you**

 

[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.

You are contradicting yourself, ja4. You say that we can see the Apostles dealing with the false teachers, yet you say they are not dealt with?

I agree that the Apostles dealt with false teachers. They ordained bishops to so after their departure. Throughout the last two centuries, the successros of the Apostles have continued to deal with the false teachers, up to the present day. I also agree that false teachers have influenced the Church at various times. It is primarily because of heresies that doctrine has been defined and developed.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus says a number of things.

These are unequivocal promises that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. There are no qualifications put on the promises; no requirements of faith or belief are given and no requirement is made that one partake in a worthy manner. If transubstantiation is true, then according to these promises all one would have to do to have eternal life is go to a Catholic Mass and partake of the Eucharist. It would not matter that this was done illicitly or without any faith at all; the requirements of the promises would be met.

I understand what you are saying here, but you are coming to the wrong conclusion because you are starting on a faulty premise. It is not appropriate to take any scripture by itself, and build a doctrine upon it. Rather, it must be taken with the Revelation of God as a whole, so that it will fit together with other passages. In those other passages, and in the early fathers, we read that no one should approach without complete obedience to the Lord’s commands, and in unity of faith with the bishop.

Jesus says more about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Here another unequivocal statement is made telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Unless we do so, nothing else can help us because no exceptions are given to the requirement. Taken together, if interpreted literally, these passages would mean that we could receive eternal life if and only if we eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood.

Catholics do interpret these literally, but we do not read them in a vaccuum. We understand that there are exceptions noted elsewhere that are to be applied to this teaching.

Earlier in John 6 Jesus makes other unequivocal promises.

In these promises Jesus tells us that if we believe in Him we will have eternal life. Paul also talks about the Lord’s Supper.

In this passage Paul tells us that we must partake in a worthy manner yet Jesus puts no such requirement in his statement. If Jesus’ statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood are taken literally then those statements contradict what both Jesus and Paul say elsewhere. However, Scripture cannot contradict itself so Jesus must not be speaking literally of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. What then does Jesus mean?

Again, you are coming to a wrong conclusion because you are proceeding from a false premise. True, scripture does not contradict, but there is no “rule” that the whole teaching will be found in one book, or one place, or from one teacher. It must be taken as a whole, and the parts not separated from each other.

It can be seen that He makes two very similar statements, “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." and "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “ It is apparent that Jesus is speaking figuratively and that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is equivalent to believing in Him.

Where is it “apparent” that Jesus is speaking figuratively? It is not apparten t to me at all! In fact, He states “my body is true flesh and my blood is true drink”. The Jews were scandalized because they believed that the life was in the blood.

Is such figurative speaking consistent with Jesus’ other teaching?

It can be seen that throughout John’s Gospel Jesus does frequently speak figuratively. In fact, He says so Himself.

Yes, and he also speaks plainly. Doesn’t it make sense that the persons who were there with him would have a more accurate understanding than we have now? Why do you reject their testimony, and that of their disciples?

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t “become” anything but what it is.

Then, please explain how Jesus takes bread, then as He is holding it, proclaims “this is my body”. Why didn’t He say “this is my bread”?

The bread in and of itself can do nothing. It has no power to do anything.

Well, at least we agree about SOMETHING! It is not until the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord that they have the power from God.

 

[guanophore]

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.u

I agree with you on that point, but He chooses to be more fully present at certain times and places, through certain people, or in certain manifestations.

(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.

I am not speaking about an entire race of people, but only the Jews that turned their back on Him in unbelief when He made the bread of life discourse. He scolded his own kinfolk more than any other, and especially those who claimed to believe, yet did not.

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?

Yes. I think that God wants us to conclude our truth based on what He has revealed, not what we can figure out. As He has said, “the flesh is of no avail”. When it comes to Divine Mysteries, the human mind falls too short. Thinking one’s way into Truth is the sin of Adam and Eve, that they can know as God knows, apart from His revelation.

 

[guanophore]

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?).

You are right, this question belongs on another thread. God did not “kill himself”. He placed Himself in the hands of sinful men, who put HIm to death. Without the shedding of blood, t here is not remission of sins.

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.

I agree with some of this. Jesus’ death does satisfy justice, as the penalty of sin is death, which He paid for us. You are right on, though that the death of Christ contains all the evil and cruelty of all mankind.

Have you considered yielding the throne of your life to Christ? You would have to give up your own solutions to satisfaction, and accept the ones that God has provided, but it would be well worth it.

the idea - that Satan rules the world. But I reject that, too.

Roy5, God has revealed Himself to humankind. Part of that revelation is found in the Bible, which is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. In that word, we read that Satan is the god of this world. The rest is a matter for another thread.

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.

Not evil or silly, Roy5. Jesus directed the Church to discern the truth, and teach it. It is the responsibility of the Church to declare and denounce what is heretical.

 

[guanophore]

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

So, are you saying that people in the second century, after Justing Martyr and Irenaeus, fell into false teaching about the Eucharist?

How can you tell?

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.

I can’t imagine. To me it seems plain that He meant it literally. Otherwise, it makes no sense why some of the disciples left Him. they were scandalized by this, just as non-believers such as yourself are today.

 

[guanophore]

Um, no. As a matter of fact, they believed in symbol only. Listen to what St. Ignatius said.

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox [Gnostics] 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.

Do you read this, and understand it to say that Jesus did not give HIs real flesh ont he cross? Or that His real flesh was not raised from the dead? Do you believe only symbolic flesh died and rose?

 

[angelusm]

Jesus said “this is My Body and My Blood” so there shouldn’t be any doubts. His words were coinfirmed by many Eucharistic miracles when bread became Body and wine became Blood. He didn’t say anything about a symbolic Eucharist, it seems to be just a protestant idea.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, all
God told Moses to make a bronze snake, and place it on pole, so that all who gazed upon it would not die from the snake bites.A symbol of God’s almighty power as well as a symbol of Christ on the cross. I believe it behoves us to listen to God [Jesus] to listen to Him and obey his commands.As in:
Matthew 26 :

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Elucidation: That mere symbol on the pole affected something, I don’t think God gave Moses a hypydermic with an antidote, for snake venom. As I’m writing another curious thing strikes me from the account in Gensis and the serpents demise.

The old baltimore catachism said it best a sacremen tis an outward sign instituted by Christ God] to give grace…

Grace Received At Christs Expense

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Metaron]

** apologies on the above, I used the wrong name for ignatius’ quote, and actually Metaron supplied Ignatius’ quote instead of Irenaeus, well here is Irenaeus…

Thanks for catching that, Casch.

This doesn’t seem a little ludicrous to claim that once the last apostle wasn’t watching everyone decided to screw it up within a few years?

He’s right. Is there any evidence that they all decided to jump ship and become heretics as soon as St.John died? There is absolutely no evidence for that.

Besides, if they had apostacized by then, then you can bet that they got the canon wrong, and the Trinity is probably a total fabrication. After all, they were heretics, right?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3363939]

Originally Posted by justasking4
It doesn’t “become” anything but what it is.

guanophore
Then, please explain how Jesus takes bread, then as He is holding it, proclaims “this is my body”. Why didn’t He say “this is my bread”?

Good question. However, did the diciples think that after Jesus said this He was now a piece of bread sitting in front of them? This is what you are forced to believe if we take the literal view.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3363793]
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.

guanophore
You are contradicting yourself, ja4. You say that we can see the Apostles dealing with the false teachers, yet you say they are not dealt with?

The apostles dealt with the false teachers while they were alive but the leaders of the church at times did not always do a good job of dealing with false teachings and the catholic church has incorporate some of them into their doctrines and practices.

I agree that the Apostles dealt with false teachers. They ordained bishops to so after their departure. Throughout the last two centuries, the successros of the Apostles have continued to deal with the false teachers, up to the present day. I also agree that false teachers have influenced the Church at various times. It is primarily because of heresies that doctrine has been defined and developed.

Some of their influences are still felt today in the catholic church.

 

[Metaron]

Good question. However, did the diciples think that after Jesus said this He was now a piece of bread sitting in front of them? This is what you are forced to believe if we take the literal view.

That’s impanation, and it is considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church believes in transubstantiantion, not impanation.

 

[Metaron]

The apostles dealt with the false teachers while they were alive but the leaders of the church at times did not always do a good job of dealing with false teachings and the catholic church has incorporate some of them into their doctrines and practices.

So Jesus didn’t keep his Promises (to Peter, to the Disciples, to the Church)?

Remember, St.Paul calls the Church the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.” How could it be, unless it is infallible in doctrine, faith, and moral teaching?

Some of their influences are still felt today in the catholic church.

Their influences are felt, but none of their doctrines have been declared by the Roman Catholic Church, since it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.