Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[bogeydogg]

So then Christ is not present but exhibited, only for believers, only symbolically, and they receive it in the Spirit representing the body and blood of Christ?

Yeah…

You should read my post again because you actually just agreed with everything I said about Calvin’s teaching and all the logical conclusions I drew from it concerning non-believers.



God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

And here’s the best thing about Calvin, he says this…

I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality.

And then he says this…

For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him?

Now you highlighted these two sentences so I am assuming you don’t see the irony. But if you read these sentences back to back you will see Calvin contradicts himself in the same paragraph. If this were anyone we you stand up and say nonsense, but if you’re a Calvinist this is voice of god.

 

[SyCarl]

And here’s the best thing about Calvin, he says this…

I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality.

And then he says this…

For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him?

Now you highlighted these two sentences so I am assuming you don’t see the irony. But if you read these sentences back to back you will see Calvin contradicts himself in the same paragraph. If this were anyone we you stand up and say nonsense, but if you’re a Calvinist this is voice of god.

How absurd and insulting to suggest a Calvinist thinks of Calvin as God, or a god. I wouldn’t call myself a true Calvinist although I am Presbyterian. The Presbyterian Church in Canada has disavowed double predestination and the Pope as anti-Christ. We don’t believe that leaders are infallible in what they taught.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

How absurd and insulting to suggest a Calvinist thinks of Calvin as God, or a god. I wouldn’t call myself a true Calvinist although I am Presbyterian. The Presbyterian Church in Canada has disavowed double predestination and the Pope as anti-Christ. We don’t believe that leaders are infallible in what they taught.

He said the voice of God. It must have been to some extent, for Calvinists or people that hold to his theology, considering it was enough to break away from Catholicism. If God didn’t speak through him (or if they didn’t believe it, anyway), it would have been imprudent for anyone to break away.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think you are misrepresenting Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper as set out in his Institutes.
He admits that the mystery is one that it is beyond his mind to comprehend.

He then goes on to indicate that the things represented by the symbols are truly present.

The quotes are taken from Chapter 17 of Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html
The Westminster Confession of Faith says

opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_29

Thanks for the many citations from Calvin. Could a Presbyterian believe in the “literal” presence of Christ in the sacrament and affirm the docrinal benefits of forgiveness of sins and eternal life by taking holy Communion?

 

[Tomyris]

Is this accurate? Calvin did not believe in the Real Presence but did acknowledge the benefits of holy Communion [forgiveness of sins/ eternal life].

No one here has bothered to define what is meant by ‘the Real Presence’ and discuss how it differs from a symbolic understanding. Is this either/or, or is there some middle ground?

I am not going to respond to the Calvin-bashing except to say that Lutherans would better learn of Calvinism from Calvinists than from someone who is so determined to misrepresent him and put him in as negative a light as possible. The best expounders of those who follow a particular position are those who follow it, not those who despise it. And the hatred and contempt are very loud. We had best move away from discussing Calvin, as it is off topic and really is only muddying the discussion.

I would point to the radical reformers as those who probably held to an empty, for lack of a better word, understanding of the Eucharist than to Calvin.

 

[Tomyris]

He said the voice of God. It must have been to some extent, for Calvinists or people that hold to his theology, considering it was enough to break away from Catholicism. If God didn’t speak through him (or if they didn’t believe it, anyway), it would have been imprudent for anyone to break away.

This suggests a very superficial understanding of the complexities of the Reformation, one that there is not enough room here to expound on why I am saying that.

 

[Tomyris]

…but if you’re a Calvinist this is voice of god.

If you are a Calvinist or have any knowledge at all of it this is absolutely hilarious. Or would be if it wasn’t so absolutely insulting. I agree with SyCarl in my reaction to this. You have lost all credibility with me, anyway.

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Robert Sungenis has written a several scholarly works. One of these is entitled Not By Bread Alone. It is the Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
One of the points that he makes for the literal translation of the scriptures is this. Christ spoke Aramaic and in the language there was no symbolism. So when the apostles and the disciple heard His words this bread is my body to be broken for you and this wine is my blood which will be shed for you, they knew what He was saying and that He meant exactly what He said. That is why many said that this is a hard statement and left Him.

Also the Romans knew what He said and accused the Christians of having a pagan sacrifice when they met secretly for Mass in the evening.

This information was then passed on to the Early Fathers whop passed it down.

There was never a doubt discussion about what Jesus spoke nor what the Apostles taught.

Thi book is deep but really grabs the Catholic or perhaps I want to be a Catholic in the explanation of the Eucharistic Mass.

I hope that my short commentary on this subjet will help you along your journey on the Way.

In Christ,
Charles

PS: Have you ever wondered why the Protestant take everything in a literal sense until it comes to what Christ spoke at the Last Supper? Ask one why to see what they say. And then share with them what I have just shared with you.

 

[SyCarl]

Thanks for the many citations from Calvin. Could a Presbyterian believe in the “literal” presence of Christ in the sacrament and affirm the docrinal benefits of forgiveness of sins and eternal life by taking holy Communion?

As far as I know you can at least in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. There are churches in Canada where the minister is shared by both Presbyterians and Lutherans.

My belief is that the whole Eucharist is a mystery than we aren’t really capable of fully understanding. I don’t think that it is as important to understand what happens as it is to commune with the intention of obeying Jesus. I think God will accomplish His will if we do this even if we don’t understand it.

 

[SyCarl]

Robert Sungenis has written a several scholarly works. One of these is entitled Not By Bread Alone. It is the Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
One of the points that he makes for the literal translation of the scriptures is this. Christ spoke Aramaic and in the language there was no symbolism. So when the apostles and the disciple heard His words this bread is my body to be broken for you and this wine is my blood which will be shed for you, they knew what He was saying and that He meant exactly what He said. That is why many said that this is a hard statement and left Him.

.

I find this a little difficult to accept. Are we to understand then that when Jesus says He is a door He is literally a door? Or when he says He is the vine He is actually a vine?

 

[SyCarl]

PS: Have you ever wondered why the Protestant take everything in a literal sense until it comes to what Christ spoke at the Last Supper? Ask one why to see what they say. And then share with them what I have just shared with you.

There are problems with holding that a Real Presence means an actual transformation and a physical presence.
First if we are going to take Jesus as speaking literally about his flesh in blood, we should take everything He says literally, not just want we want.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
(John 6:44-58 ESV)

Yes Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Let’s assume that Jesus is actually speaking literally. But what else does He say. He says if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. He says whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. If we take one part literally why not these as well. Here he makes unconditional statements. There are no qualifications given. Whatever may be said elsewhere here He equates eating with living forever. If Jesus is physically present anyone who eats the bread and drinks the wine would eat His flesh and drink His blood. This would mean that if anyone goes to a Catholic Church and receives the Eucharist whether he is Christian or not would have eternal life. Is this what the Catholic Church believes?

Moving on we also see Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us. Again an unequivocal statement which would make the eating His flesh and drinking His blood an absolute requirement, no exceptions. But what else does He say? He says whoever believes has eternal life. So we have another unconditional statement. But how can this be true if eating and drinking is absolutely required. The only way both can be true, and Jesus cannot lie, is if believing and eating and drinking are the same thing.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As far as I know you can at least in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. There are churches in Canada where the minister is shared by both Presbyterians and Lutherans.

My belief is that the whole Eucharist is a mystery than we aren’t really capable of fully understanding. I don’t think that it is as important to understand what happens as it is to commune with the intention of obeying Jesus. I think God will accomplish His will if we do this even if we don’t understand it.

SyCarl,

Is there a link to what the Presbyerian Church in Canada believes in the Sacrament? When you write “to commune with the intention of obeying Jesus” are you referring to: “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”? Luke 22:19

Here’s official Eucharistic belief between Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox. Can you accept this understanding of the Real Presence?

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

56.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ “is present as the crucified who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world”.42

62.Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.
raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

. The Mystery of the Real Presence
22.
Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christians hold in common the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as taught in Scripture. Our churches stress the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to highlight the central purpose of the sacrament, viz. that the crucified, risen, and exalted Lord gives himself to us fully, draws us to himself, and shares with us his saving work and glorious life. These purposes are achieved by him when he gives us his body and blood by means of and in the eucharistic bread and wine. We hold that this is the mutual confession of our churches.

Orthodox and Lutherans recognize the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as the “fulfillment of the Christians’ participation in the life of Christ and his church through eating his body and drinking his blood in the Holy Eucharist” (Duràu Statement . . . In the Eucharist, the believers receive the body and blood of the Lord as a healing and spiritual nourishment of their souls and bodies and experience their membership in the Body of Christ. In this way, believers receive forgiveness of their sins and the gift of eternal life. The Eucharist presupposes the confession of the one faith of the church and strengthens the believers’ union with Christ and their union and communion with each other both locally and universally (Mk 14,22-26; 1Cor 10,16f).

d. Orthodox and Lutherans agree that the Eucharist is also a gift of communion granted to us by Christ. In this communion we are fully united with Him and with the members of His Body. The “how”of the mystery remains inexplicable, but the “what” is clearly confessed in faith and thanksgiving.

c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.
ecupatria.org/DIALOGUES/L…islava2006.htm

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This suggests a very superficial understanding of the complexities of the Reformation, one that there is not enough room here to expound on why I am saying that.

Why would someone follow someone else away from a faith if they didn’t think they were divinely inspired to some degree?

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Hello Sy! That is the entire point. Protestants in general take everything in Scriptural literally. That is why it is so confounding to hear them deny the Real Presence. This book by Sungenis quite scholarly and supports with scripture what I positing here.
In Christ,
Charles
PS: from the Early Church’s tradition it has always ben accepted. Read the Early Fathers who were taught directly by the Apostles.

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Sy Carl! One who is a nonchristian could not receive the Eucharist because he is not in communion with the Lord because he is not baptized. Secondly, the words of Christ that you paraphrased are true. We will live forever if we are accepted into Heaven. But we may also live in Hell forever if that is what we choose during this lifetime.
In Christ,
Charles
PS: There are metaphors that the Lord used also to explain it to the people in their culture and understanding. When he was speaking in Aramaic, He was speaking to those folks and they very well understood what He was saying and some walked away as I saif before. If you are truly interested in this subject, purchase this book or borrow it from your local Library. Sungenis does a masterful job.

 

[Brotherchuckles]

In response to: Moving on we also see Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us. Again an unequivocal statement which would make the eating His flesh and drinking His blood an absolute requirement, no exceptions. But what else does He say? He says whoever believes has eternal life. So we have another unconditional statement. But how can this be true if eating and drinking is absolutely required. The only way both can be true, and Jesus cannot lie, is if believing and eating and drinking are the same thing.

The reception of Christ in the Eucharist gives us sacramental grace which enables us to lead the Catholic christian life in doing the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, following the ten Commandments, exercising the beatitudes etc.
Yes you must believe before you will have eternal life. If you are not a believer it would be sacriligious if you were to partake of the sacrament. Both conditions are paramopnt to gaining eternal life. Believing precedes the receiving the body and blood of Christ. When a Catholic is baptized, the parents are promising to raise their child as a Catholic. Then when they reach the age of reason they will confirm their personal belief in the sacrament of Confirmation and also make their first Holy Communion.

I am not very scholarly but I have tried to explain this to you as the best I can.

I am not certain if you are a non-catholic but here is a site that you might like to check out: olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml
The Protestant Bible proving the Truth of Catholicism

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Hello Andrewstx! Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Church as referenced below:
In the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 13th session, chapter 4: 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” ,and the new catechism simply reiterates the Council of Trent IS TRANSUBSTANTIATION DOGMA?
In Christ,
Charles

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Please explain to me how Jesus was able to make the following statement while still alive,
" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; **For this is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

Also Paul’s statement,

Also, why does our Lord indicate that He had just eaten His own body, and drank His own blood, and would do so again with the Apostles in His Father’s kingdom?

It only makes sense if we are dealing with the plain elements of bread and fruit of the vine.

biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html

Protector.

We cannot explain this mystery but if the Lord can change water into wine for the marriage feast at Cana He most certainly do what He said He was doing in the consecration of the bread and wine at His last supper.
In Christ,
Charles

 

[Brotherchuckles]

I’m confused. Does this mean that a Lutheran can receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass?

No they cannot because they are no longer in Communion with the True Church.
In Christ,
Charles