Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[adawgj]

I think Fr Mitch Pacwa ,SJ,PhD,S.T.B can help explain the real presence of the Eucharist.

Of course there are some Protestants who believe in the presence (Lutherans, Anglicans per se)

youtube.com/watch?v=AKE4NsIDMMY&feature=player_detailpage#t=0

 

[Protector]

andrewstx;11788154]I am Orthodox and in no way do we believe in any ‘symbolic element’ in the Divine Liturgy or Holy Eucharist. In some ways we are like the Lutherans. We just take Our Lord at his word when he said “This is my body”. It is a holy mystery to us.

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,

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: **this do in remembrance of me.” **1 Corinthians 11:23-24

“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:29

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.

 

[rcwitness]

Please explain to me how Jesus was able to make the following statement while still alive.

Peace be with you Protector,

I believe He did so, the same way He does so now. But Im not interested in debating your interpretation in this thread. I would like you, or anyone who Communes in a purely symbolic Eucharist congregation to to provide some early Church writings explaining your interpretation. By that, I mean well before Calvin.

Thanks bro
Michael

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I never understood this either. Why would Christ have allowed his Church to be in error for 1500 years? Scripture assures us that the Church is the “pillar and mainstay of the truth” What gives Martin Luther and the other “reformers” more authority than the teachings Apostles and the ECFs?

You do realize that Luther and the Lutheran branch of the Reformation believed in the Real Presence as does the Anglican?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The question I have, is how did Christians fall away from the belief in the Real Presence? Perhaps a theological discussion on how Calvin, Zwingli, Knox came to understand the sacraments would help.

 

[TOmNossor]

Peace be with you Protector,

I believe He did so, the same way He does so now. But Im not interested in debating your interpretation in this thread. I would like you, or anyone who Communes in a purely symbolic Eucharist congregation to to provide some early Church writings explaining your interpretation. By that, I mean well before Calvin.

Thanks bro
Michael
Being on the non-Catholic side of this topic (or the Catholic side) is not something I want to spend a lot of time on, but you keep asking the above question. If you really want an answer, please keep reading and follow the link.

Cardinal Newman was quite clear that the ECF did not universally teach the Real Presence.
Here is a thread where I discussed all I knew about this at the time (including what Newman said):
web.archive.org/web/20060522201501/http://p075.ezboard.com/fcatholicpillarandfoundationfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=101.topic&start=1&stop=20
Charity, TOm

 

[Per_Crucem]

The question I have, is how did Christians fall away from the belief in the Real Presence? Perhaps a theological discussion on how Calvin, Zwingli, Knox came to understand the sacraments would help.

It all depends on how real presence is defined, I suppose. If real presence is defined as the local presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, then Calvin rejected the real presence. If, however, real presence is defined as receiving the body and blood of Christ, regardless of the presence in the elements, then Calvin would affirm it. Ultimately, he tried to find a compromise position in between Luther and Zwingli and only ended up alienating both of them.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It all depends on how real presence is defined, I suppose. If real presence is defined as the local presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, then Calvin rejected the real presence. If, however, real presence is defined as receiving the body and blood of Christ, regardless of the presence in the elements, then Calvin would affirm it. Ultimately, he tried to find a compromise position in between Luther and Zwingli and only ended up alienating both of them.

 

[pablope]

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

Protector.

Jesus is God, isn’t he? He can do anything He wanted…including giving His body and blood at the last supper to the Apostles…to accomplish His teaching in John 6…so do you think He could not give His body and blood at the Last Supper?

 

[cheezey]

It should be noted that rather a few sorts of protestants DO believe in the literal Real Presence

(though many balk at the phrasing of Transubstantiation). IIRC, those on the Anglican and Lutheran side of the protestant tree don’t go the symbolic route. It’s those who come down from the Calvin side of the protestant tree who do the symbolic thing. Same sorts of people likely to have Doritos and Coke “communion.” (I wish I were making that up, but I’ve seen it)

I wonder where?!

 

[Nicea325]

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.

No offense,but you are boxing God with human limitations. Is Jesus God? Yes or No?

 

[Nicea325]

I never understood this either. Why would Christ have allowed his Church to be in error for 1500 years? Scripture assures us that the Church is the “pillar and mainstay of the truth” **What gives Martin Luther and the other “reformers” more authority than **the teachings Apostles and the ECFs?

That is the whole issue,none had authority from God. I have met Protestants who truly believe the Holy Spirit guided Luther? uch:

 

[Nicea325]

Being on the non-Catholic side of this topic (or the Catholic side) is not something I want to spend a lot of time on, but you keep asking the above question. If you really want an answer, please keep reading and follow the link.

Cardinal Newman was quite clear that the ECF did not universally teach the Real Presence.
Here is a thread where I discussed all I knew about this at the time (including what Newman said):
web.archive.org/web/20060522201501/http://p075.ezboard.com/fcatholicpillarandfoundationfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=101.topic&start=1&stop=20
Charity, TOm

Before Newman’s conversion or after?

 

[TOmNossor]

Before Newman’s conversion or after?

My understanding is both. It was the work that allowed Newman to align his knowledge of history with Catholicism. In fact that is not fair. It was his work that allowed him to see history as a powerful apologetic for Catholic truth claims.

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. – John Henry Newman
I think he wrote it on his way in, but updated it while a Catholic. I am not sure on this, but today it is considered a Catholic view.
Charity, TOm

 

[JonNC]

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,

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-24

Do what in remembrance of Him? What is it we are to do in remembrance of Him?

We are to… “take, eat, this is My body.” The bread and wine are not remembrances. The act of eating and drinking His body and blood is done in remembrance of Him.

Nothing in the Lord’s Supper accounts lends one to believe we are dealing with mere bread and wine. His own words say differently.

Jon

 

[EIF5A]

I don’t know how to describe this, and I have no theological training to assert this, but it seems whatever Jesus has said, there’s always a greater and deeper meaning. The literal interpretation of His spoken words and literal no-more-no-less attitude as it comes to Scripture seem to hinder what God wants to convey to us. Is it due to depending too much on what we can rationally understand with our limited minds?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My sense is that there are other factors that contribute to Protestant denial of the Real Presence. Martin Luther was very concerned about excess adoration in place of actual communion. Some Christians felt inadequate and afraid to take holy Communion so it became easier to pray in front of the Reserved Sacrament. Catholics, in agreement with Lutherans, have noted that the Eucharist is meant to be a communal meal where forgiveness of sins and eternal life are offered,

In general, it appears many Protestants are uncomfortable with sacramental theology to the point that Baptism is merely a commitment to Christ rather than Christ’s commitment to us.

 

[perskin27]

The first step, you should take care of fresh make up because the good grooming is a key element that makes you become more perfect. In recent trends, people always prefer the simplicity and elegance. So a natural, flawless complexion is an ideal way of creating a polished look. Choose a foundation that gives skin a matte appearance, without being too dry or flaky. Also, nothing beats a bit of rouge, groomed eyebrows, and a glossy lip.

---

denim jeans

 

[cajunhillbilly]

My sense is that there are other factors that contribute to Protestant denial of the Real Presence. Martin Luther was very concerned about excess adoration in place of actual communion. Some Christians felt inadequate and afraid to take holy Communion so it became easier to pray in front of the Reserved Sacrament. Catholics, in agreement with Lutherans, have noted that the Eucharist is meant to be a communal meal where forgiveness of sins and eternal life are offered,

In general, it appears many Protestants are uncomfortable with sacramental theology to the point that Baptism is merely a commitment to Christ rather than Christ’s commitment to us.

I agree. I get so tired of hearing the view that baptism is merely our public commitment to Jesus. That makes it a work and not a means of grace

 

[EIF5A]

My sense is that there are other factors that contribute to Protestant denial of the Real Presence. Martin Luther was very concerned about excess adoration in place of actual communion. Some Christians felt inadequate and afraid to take holy Communion so it became easier to pray in front of the Reserved Sacrament. Catholics, in agreement with Lutherans, have noted that the Eucharist is meant to be a communal meal where forgiveness of sins and eternal life are offered,

In general, it appears many Protestants are uncomfortable with sacramental theology to the point that Baptism is merely a commitment to Christ rather than Christ’s commitment to us.

If Jesus is Really Present, then how do you excessively adore the Eucharist?

Unless the Real Presence is only understood in like a metaphysical sense…