Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[Nicea325]

Tomi:

The lamb was a real lamb, a SYMBOL of Christ, a TYPE of Christ. If anything it points to a symbolic or typological Eucharist.

Yes just as Adam was a type of Jesus and Eve a type of Mary. Story of Noah a type of baptism and so forth. But they ATE it-right? They chewed something tangent-right?

The lamb was not the Messiah, the lamb did not turn into the Messiah, there was no metamorphosis of the lamb into the Lamb, correct? It stayed a lamb, correct?

The Passover lamb was never intended to turn into the human Messiah.Where did you even get such a odd idea? It stayed a lamb,correct? Yet consumed-correct? Precisely why it was a foreshadowing of something better to come-correct? Was not the Jewish Sabbath a type of salvation only to be made better with a newer Sabbath-correct as Paul says in Colossians?

Have you read Melito of Sardis’ “On Pascha”?

No.

He discusses the typology of the Passover in the second half of the second century. But I don’t think he discusses a Purely Symbolic Eucharist versus Real Presence, which controversy was later.

A controversy? When? Show me one writing from one orthodox Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation discussing this controversy before 1521?

A controversy introduced with the Protestant Reformation.

 

[rcwitness]

In my mind there are two questions.

1. Is there a distinct difference between a Purely Symbolic Eucharist and the Real Presence?
2. Can that difference be found in the Church Fathers?

All other discussion is off thread. Sorry.

1.) Purely Symbolic Eucharist would mean a Bread and wine that ‘represents’ Jesus, or that we ‘pretend’ is Jesus.
Real Presence would mean Jesus actually exists in the bread and wine, or we actually receive the physical humanity (and Spirit) of Christ. He has melded Himself to the Sacrament through His Word. There is an actual spiritual AND physical change which occurs with the bread and wine… A blessing like the Incarnation. Though hidden for the purpose of true faith. Not intended to be an obsticle, but a mystery of faith, which encapsulates the essence of ‘God with us’.

2.) All writings from the ECF’s that I’ve read support Real Presence. The one interesting person’s discription is Oregin. He does use the term ‘symbol’. And in this way, I believe the Church does not argue there is symbolic ‘meaning’ in what we are doing in Communion, but the symbolic meaning is that there are two natures at work in the Communion. Our Spiritual faith and belief in the gospel delivered to us from Jesus, and the actual real physical means of flesh and blood that made our salvation possible and complete.

You see, the Sacrament was instituted to bring together the lost sheep into one pasture. A ‘symbolic’ Communion can have value, just as those communities can believe in the saving gospel. Yet, the benefits of a Communion outside the apostolic Eucharist are lacking. What it is lacking is the Real Presence!

Hope this helps,
Michael

 

[chero23]

Jesus could not have been speaking symbolically b/c what he said in John 6, he repeats verbatim in the Last Supper. He never steps back an says, oh its just a symbol. The following is some of my study in regards to the Eucharist.

•Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
•Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25 here we see as Jesus raise the cup, he says, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. As we see, Jesus is telling them, what the Prophet Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31:31-33. In the Old Testament, the blood of the covenant was said by Moses in** Exodus 24:8.**
Something important that we must understand is that Moses is a prefiguration of Jesus. The following verses, we will see that parallels between these two men, and how it can help us with the Lamb. .
•Exodus 3:8 Moses was chosen by God, to lead (exodus) the Israelites out of Egypt, same as **Luke 9:28-31 **when Jesus went to the mountain of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus about his departure (exodus)
•Exodus 4:22-23 God says that Israel is his first born son, Let my son go that he may serve me, same as Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 9:35 Jesus is the chosen Son of God
•Exodus 7:14-24 the first sign that Moses did was turn the water into blood, same as  John 2:1-11 the first sign that Jesus did was turn water into wine.
•Exodus 34:28 Moses fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, same as  Matthew 4:2; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2 Jesus fasted for 40 days and 4 nights
•Deuteronomy 18:15-18 Moses says that, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren – him you shall heed”, same as  Matthew 21:11; John 6:14 here we see how Jesus is called the Prophet

We will now speak about the Passover, we will speak about the Passover in the Old Testament and how Jesus fulfilled it in the New Testament.
•Exodus 12:1-6 The lamb had to be a year old without any blemish, same as  John 1:29,36 Jesus is called as the Lamb of the World, Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; and John 19:4,6 Jesus did not have any fault (blemish)
•Exodus 12:6 the lamb had to be sacrificed, and Exodus 12:46 says that bones of the lamb could not be broken, same as Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30 Jesus was sacrificed, during the Passover; John 19:33, none of Jesus bones were broken
•Exodus 12:12-13 the lamb that was going to be sacrificed, was for the forgiveness of sins, same as John 1:29. Jesus is the Lamb of the World, who takes away the sins of the world.
•Exodus 12:7,21-23 the blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the posts, same as  Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30 the blood of Jesus was on the cross
•Exodus 6:53-54,59 the lamb had to be eaten on the same night as it was sacrificed, same as John 6:53-56, Jesus says on several occasions that if you don’t eat him, you won’t have eternal life.
•Exodus 29:18 the lamb is a pleasing odor, an offering by fire to the LORD, same as  Ephesians 5:2 Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
•Deuteronomy 16:5-7 Passover had to be celebrated in Jerusalem, same as Matthew26:17-19; Mark 14:12-14; Luke 22:7-10 Jesus celebrated Passover in Jerusalem.
•Deuteronomy 16:6 Passover was at night, same as Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14, they celebrated Passover at night.
•Exodus 12:14 Passover will be done always, same as 1 Corinthians 11:25 Paul says to this sacrifice always in remembrance of Christ.
•Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26 when they finished eating the Passover meal, they sang Psalms, these were probably Psalms 115-118.

 We will now compare the exodus of the Israelites in Exodus 16, with the sermon that Jesus gave in John 6.
•Exodus 16:15; Psalms 78:23-29; Wisdom 16:20-21 God made bread from Heaven, same as John 6:35,48,50-51;58 Jesus is the Bread that came down from Heaven
•Exodus 16:2-7,9,12 the Israelites began to murmur against God, Moses, and Aaron, same as John 6:41,52,60,64 the people began to murmur about what Jesus was saying.
•Exodus 16:12; Psalms 78:27 God gave them meat in the afternoons to eat, and bread in the mornings, same as John 6:35,48,50-51,58 Jesus is the bread that came down from Heave, John 6:53-56 Jesus says that his body is flesh to eat.
•Exodus 16:32-34; Hebrews 9:4 the Jews would put the manna in the tabernacle because it was holy, same as this is why in the Catholic Church, the consecrated bread is placed in the tabernacle.
•Exodus 40:34-38 God made his presence known in the tabernacle, same as  This is why we believe that God is present in the Tabernacle when we go to the Chapel for Adoration. .
•Exodus 16:31 God gave them the manna, which was like wafers with honey, same as  The Eucharist is wafers with a taste of honey,
•Leviticus 24:1-4 God told Moses to tell the Israelites, to bring you pure oil from beaten olives for the lamp, that a light may be kept burning continually, same as  this is why a candle is always burning in front of the Tabernacle

 

[chero23]

pg. 2

When Jesus makes his sermon about the Bread of Heaven, there’s a lot of stuff that we must pay close attention to. This section is meant for us to look at that chapter more profoundly.
•John 6:1-15 Jesus feed more than 5,000 men
•John 6:14 the people believed that Jesus was that prophet whom they were hoping for, same as Deuteronomy 18:15-18 Moses says that, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren – him you shall heed”
•John 6:30-34 after he feed more than 5,000 men with 5 breads and 2 fish, the people asked Jesus to do a miracle just like Moses had.
•John 6:35-37 after the people asked Jesus for a miracle, because their ancestors ate bread from Heaven, Jesus tells them that he is the bread which came down from Heaven.
•John 6:48-59 here we see that Jesus at no point backs down against the murmuring, he says that he is the bread which has come down from Heaven, that his body is flesh to eat and his blood is wine to drink. He never says it’s just a symbol.
•John 6:49 Jesus tells them that their ancestors ate from the manna and died, same as John 6:58 Jesus tells that whoever eats him will always live.
•John 6:62-63 Jesus says that it’s the Spirit which gives life, not the body, same as  John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Since we have spoken about the Passover and the Manna, let’s turn our attention to the Our Father. This is a very powerful and humble prayer. This is a prayer that our Lord Jesus Christ taught us, and it’s the perfect prayer. Let’s focus on this prayer, and how it relates to the Eucharist.
•Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3 in his Our Father prayer, Jesus says “Gives us this our daily bread”, let’s be profound about this verse. What “Daily bread” was Jesus speaking about? He was not talking about the food that we eat, as in hamburgers, or steaks, if you don’t believe me see the next verse.
•Matthew 6:25-33; Luke 12:22-31 After his Our Father prayer, Jesus tells the people to not worry about what they will eat, as his Father who is in Heaven will give them what they need to eat. (You might be asking yourself, what is he talking about then, let’s look at the next verse.)
•John 6:35, 48,50-51,58 Jesus says that he is the bread which has come down from Heaven, John 6:53-56 Jesus says that his body is flesh to eat, and his blood is wine to drink. If we can see, Jesus is telling them, don’t worry about food, I’m the only food that you need.

We have seen that Jesus constantly calls himself the bread of Life, that he is the Lamb of the World which takes away the sins of the World. We will now speak and compare the Bread of Presence from the Old Testament, and the Last Dinner with Jesus.
•Leviticus 24:6 On the Table of the Lord, put 2 rows of 6 loaves on each row (6x2=12), Exodus 24:4 Moses placed 12 stone tablets representing each tribe, same as Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13; Luke 6:13 Jesus picked 12 disciples, representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
•Leviticus 23:12-13 A pleasant offering was done to God of bread and wine, same as  Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Jesus made an offering of bread and wine.
•Exodus 12:14 God says that this must be done for all of the generations, same as  Jeremiah 31:31-32; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 the bread and wine is the new covenant that will last forever.
•Leviticus 24:7 the bread is a remembrance, same as Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Jesus said to do this in remembrance of him
•1 Samuel 21:6; 2 Chronicles 26:18 only the High Priest is allowed to bless the bread, same as  Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Jesus, the High Priest blessed the bread.
•Leviticus 24:9 the priest ate the bread, same as Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 the new priests ate the bread.

We will make another comparison. This time we will look at the miracle at the feeding of the 5,000 men with the Last Supper. Here, we will see that Jesus at no moment backs down about the bread being his body.
•John 6:1-2 when Jesus gave his sermon about the Eucharist it happened in the evening, same as Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17 the last supper happened at night.
•John 6:10 the men were seated, same as Matthew 26:20; Mark 14: 18; Luke 22:14 the apostles were seated
•John 6:11 Jesus took the bread in his hand and blessed it, same as  Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 Jesus took the bread in his hand and blessed it
•John 6:11 Jesus broke the bread and passed it to the men, same as  Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 Jesus broke the bread and passed it to his disciples.

 

[chero23]

pg. 3

The 4th Cup, What does the 4th Cup mean? When Jesus is speaking in the Last Supper, he says, “I will not drink of this Cup until I’m with my Father”. What does Jesus mean about that Cup, because if you haven’t noticed he mentions it at the Last Supper, while he’s praying at Gethsemane, and when he’s on the Cross. This section will be to explain that 4th Cup.
•Matthew 26:29-30; Mark 14:25 Jesus says, “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." As any good Jewish, they would drink 4 cups of wine on the Passover meal, but here Jesus says, that I will not drink again.
•Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46 when Jesus is praying at Gethsemane, he says “"My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt”. One more time, Jesus speaks of this cup, the same one which he spoke of in the Last Supper.
•Luke 22:14-20 and when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Here we see 2 distinct cups, that Jesus gives thanks over. One is to give thanks to the Father, and the 2nd one is to pronounce the new covenant.
•Matthew 27:33-34; Mark 15:22-23 when they crucified Jesus, they offered him something to drink, but he denied it. It is said that Jesus didn’t take wine at this moment, because in Proverbs 31:6, it states, “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress”, Jesus did not want to give the impression that he was losing. .
•Matthew 27:48-50; Mark 15:36-38; John 19:29-30 here we see that Jesus was given wine, and it’s not after he takes it, that he says, It is finished, and dies. He did this to unite the Last Supper with the Cross.
•Luke 22:19 Jesus tells the disciples, “This is my body which is given for you”, same as  Matthew 26:28 “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”, same as  Mark 10:45 “to give his life as a ransom for many. He transformed the Cross into the Passover dinner, and with the Cross, he transformed the Passover Meal into a Sacrifice.

 Other important verses
•Genesis 14:17-18 the first time the word priest is mentioned in the Bible, and we see how the High Priest Melchizedek offers bread and wine.
•Exodus 12:27 When the Lamb was sacrificed, the people bowed their heads and worshiped
•Matthew 28:20 Jesus tells the apostles that he will always be with them, same as Luke 24:27-31 The Apostles told Jesus to stay with them, Jesus went and stayed with them, when he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. As we can see, the Apostles recognized that it was Jesus, when he blessed the Bread; they knew that his presence was real.

 

[bogeydogg]

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?

Yes. He is the door to God and Heaven do you deny this? He is the vine apart form whom you can do nothing… surely no Calvinist ever would deny this…

And if his is not the voice of a Prophet then why do Calvinist define themselves as Calvinst before Christian?

 

[bogeydogg]

So how “real” is the “real presence”? Do those who demand to know that they got a chunk of ear or part of a gall bladder regard the rest of you as not believing in the Real Presence?
Can we actually draw a firm line between those who believe in the RP versus those who believe in a Purely Symbolic Eucharist (PRE)? Or is it an overlap, with cannibalism on the one end of the spectrum and an insistence on the Real Absence on the other end?

Can you say that because I believe that Christ is really, truly present, localized even in the elements, with graces for those who partake, although I deny transubstantiation, while affirming that where His Spirit is so is His Body in a particular mysterious way, that I do not believe in the Real Presence? Or must only ear-chompers be considered truly Catholic?

Kettle?

You know perfectly well this is mischaracterization of the orthodox teaching on this matter, why even bring it up?

And in your rush to be offended at my words I notice you only attacked me and did not refute a single argument I made even though others have asked you to do that very thing.

 

[bogeydogg]

There is another problem however, Christ was famous and is still for teaching in parable.

The Kingdom of heaven is like a pearl… a mustard seed… leaven… a net cast in the sea…a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old… whoever is like a child will enter… etc, etc…

But somehow when Christ talked about himself he very specifically did not allow room for such vagaries,

I am the door

I am the vine

This is my body… this cup is the blood of the new covenant.

And yet somehow Zwingli and Calvin insist on putting words in the mouth of Christ that none of the Gospel authors or St Paul did.

That is why I refer to Calvin as being of the radical reformation (even though I know Calvinists insist that started with Arminius) because neither Luther nor the Anglican reformers made this leap, and that is radical. And among the conservative Lutherans such as LCMS and ELDoNA and WELS all who deny the real presence are considered to be “radical”.

As to my credibility, well I notice that while there was anger at my, admitted, provocation, there was no answer to my charges. Only that I must “hate” Calvin, but I wonder how you feel when certain members of our culture say you hate them because you disagree with their stance on marriage? It’s not hate, I was raised into Christianity in Calvinist churches, I just refute it utterly as not being of the Christian Faith.

And the chief area at which the departure begins is over the most fundamental mistrust of Christ’s own words, such as “This is my body.”

 

[Per_Crucem]

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?

There is a problem with this argument. The non-literal elements in phrases like, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Vine,” are not the words “I am”, but the words, “Door” and “Vine”.

In other words, when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Vine” Jesus was claiming TO BE something, not merely TO REPRESENT something. He was not saying “I REPRESENT the Vine and you REPRESENT the branches”, He was claiming TO BE the Vine to whom the branches are connected to. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “I am…” but what He meant by “the Vine”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word “is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word “is”. You might even write it out in two columns.

I am… …the Door.

I am… …the Vine.

This is… …my body.

This is… …my blood.

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer?

 

[bogeydogg]

Fair enough but the word missing from the door, vine, body and blood examples is

ὅμοιος homoios

meaning “like” or “resembling” and that word is very much present in the parables about the Kingdom.

Since Christ did use similes in his teaching (in fact he is famous for it) and such similes are I would say noticeably even loudly absent from the examples stated about himself then I think it special pleading to argue that God fumbled his words and meant to be more clear than was and so we can safely assume he meant to use simile and would have had he rethought it.

 

[bogeydogg]

Fair enough that it is difficult to accept I mean.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There is another problem however, Christ was famous and is still for teaching in parable.

The Kingdom of heaven is like a pearl… a mustard seed… leaven… a net cast in the sea…a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old… whoever is like a child will enter… etc, etc…

But somehow when Christ talked about himself he very specifically did not allow room for such vagaries,

I am the door

I am the vine

This is my body… this cup is the blood of the new covenant.

And yet somehow Zwingli and Calvin insist on putting words in the mouth of Christ that none of the Gospel authors or St Paul did.

That is why I refer to Calvin as being of the radical reformation (even though I know Calvinists insist that started with Arminius) because neither Luther nor the Anglican reformers made this leap, and that is radical. And among the conservative Lutherans such as LCMS and ELDoNA and WELS all who deny the real presence are considered to be “radical”.

As to my credibility, well I notice that while there was anger at my, admitted, provocation, there was no answer to my charges. Only that I must “hate” Calvin, but I wonder how you feel when certain members of our culture say you hate them because you disagree with their stance on marriage? It’s not hate, I was raised into Christianity in Calvinist churches, I just refute it utterly as not being of the Christian Faith.

And the chief area at which the departure begins is over the most fundamental mistrust of Christ’s own words, such as “This is my body.”

Outstanding reply. I am concerned that some Presbyterians expressed offense to your statements. But sacramental acceptance of Lutheran dogma regarding the Eucharist allows full-communion Presbyterians to embrace Real Presence.

The photo is a Presbyterian pastor & lay assistant at the altar of a Lutheran-Presbyterian congregation.

 

[steido01]

The photo is a Presbyterian pastor & lay assistant at the altar of a Lutheran-Presbyterian congregation.

From a Confessional Lutheran standpoint, there are so many things wrong with that picture. But perhaps the worst is that The Simpsons is becoming reality!

 

[bogeydogg]

From a Confessional Lutheran standpoint, there are so many things wrong with that picture. But perhaps the worst is that The Simpsons is becoming reality!

I was going to point that out but since I’m not a Confessional Lutheran anymore I figured someone else would.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I was going to point that out but since I’m not a Confessional Lutheran anymore I figured someone else would.

haha…you don’t need to be a confessional Lutheran to point that out.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is a problem with this argument. The non-literal elements in phrases like, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Vine,” are not the words “I am”, but the words, “Door” and “Vine”.

In other words, when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Vine” Jesus was claiming TO BE something, not merely TO REPRESENT something. He was not saying “I REPRESENT the Vine and you REPRESENT the branches”, He was claiming TO BE the Vine to whom the branches are connected to. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “I am…” but what He meant by “the Vine”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word “is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word “is”. You might even write it out in two columns.

I am… …the Door.

I am… …the Vine.

This is… …my body.

This is… …my blood.

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer?

My goodness… I agree with you



Very good job!

 

[SyCarl]

Yes. He is the door to God and Heaven do you deny this? He is the vine apart form whom you can do nothing… surely no Calvinist ever would deny this…

And if his is not the voice of a Prophet then why do Calvinist define themselves as Calvinst before Christian?

I would not really call myself a Calvinist as I don’t believe in things like limited atonement and perseverance of the elect is really a useless truism if you define the elect as the ones who will be with Jesus in Heaven. However I don’t discount everything he taught. I would also note that he indicates that Eucharist is beyond his ability to give an adequate explanation and I agree it is beyond anyone’s ability. That is why the sacraments were called mysteries in the early church.

I think that his thoughts on the Lord’s Supper make the most sense when considering what Jesus says. I want to give meaning to all of His words and not just the ones I choose to.

Now whatever is said elsewhere in the Bible in John 6 Jesus says

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.
(John 6:53-55 ESV)

I have never heard anyone who can explain how Jesus’ statement here can be reconciled with something like transubstantiation. By saying that the elements are actually transformed into Jesus it would mean anyone receiving them would have eternal life no matter what they believe. That they should not receive does not someone from going to a parish and partaking. Would he be questioned or would he be disbelieved if he lied and said he was Catholic. By receiving he would be eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood and according to Jesus unequivocal statement he has eternal life. Either Jesus is lying, which is impossible, He must mean something other than He is actually physically present in the sacrament. The only solution I see is some kind of receptionist view and a spiritual presence rather than a physical presence makes it possible to accept everything Jesus says.

A receptionist Eucharist appears to have support in the early church.

. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth],

Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

And he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If anyone doubts and eats it, it is plain bread to him.

Ephrem the Syrian (Memra for the Fifth Day of the Great Week (Holy Thursday), Sermon 4) Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVa John 1-10, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 236.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

My goodness… I agree with you



Very good job!

LOL!

In other news, temperatures in the 4th level of hell are being affected by a North Dakota cold front that moved in early today…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

LOL!

In other news, temperatures in the 4th level of hell are being affected by a North Dakota cold front that moved in early today…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

From a Confessional Lutheran standpoint, there are so many things wrong with that picture. But perhaps the worst is that The Simpsons is becoming reality!

Not sure I would agree with you. First off, instead of a table the Presbyterian-Lutheran Eucharist is being celebrated at a vested altar; the pastor is also vested in alb and stole. Second, there is a veiled chalice, a paten and cruet of wine instead of communion trays. With the pastor facing the congregation, I assume there is an elevation of host and cup. According to the info on the website, this Lutheran-Presbyterian church celebrates holy Communion weekly and they follow the church year. I am not sure if a Lutheran-Presbyterian parish requires belief in the Real Presence but they definitively give that impression.