Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[Isaiah45_9]

This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs… yet again we clearly see the teaching intent and none of believe it literally.

The commercial is not Christ.

With Christ, everything is different.

I think there is genius in what Christ said here (Everything really but just want to make a point):

Luke 18:17 "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Christ says He’s the door, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says He’s the vine, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, I say, Yes Sir.

I think the root of the resistance to believe is because it is too Catholic , and we can’t have that, like *a *Bishop of Dune likes to say.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The commercial is not Christ.

With Christ, everything is different.

I think there is genius in what Christ said here (Everything really but just want to make a point):

Luke 18:17 "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Christ says He’s the door, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says He’s the vine, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, I say, Yes Sir.

I think the root of the resistance to believe is because it is too Catholic , and we can’t have that, like *a *Bishop of Dune likes to say.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

 

[Nicea325]

But that doesn’t answer my question. He also said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” So, that argument doesn’t hold unless there is a specific reason in the Greek to take it literally. Also, what would Luther make of the commercial I cited? Obviously I’m using that as an example and don’t expect anyone to actually be able to tell me what Luther would have said, but I believe the question makes my point; just because we call something another thing does not actually mean it is in a literal sense. An egg is not my brain, yet a man can show an egg and say, “This is your brain.” Also just as in the commercial I cited, Jesus put action along with words to show the word picture more clearly. This is My body; and He broke the bread. This is my blood, which was poured. The bread and wine were explicitly chosen as visual symbol as well as for the other symbolic values attached to those particular items.

This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs… yet again we clearly see the teaching intent and none of believe it literally.

Bad example! Comparing a drug commercial to Jesus teachings is an insult!

BTW: Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek!

 

[Mystical_Poet]

But that doesn’t answer my question. He also said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” So, that argument doesn’t hold unless there is a specific reason in the Greek to take it literally. Also, what would Luther make of the commercial I cited? Obviously I’m using that as an example and don’t expect anyone to actually be able to tell me what Luther would have said, but I believe the question makes my point; just because we call something another thing does not actually mean it is in a literal sense. An egg is not my brain, yet a man can show an egg and say, “This is your brain.” Also just as in the commercial I cited, Jesus put action along with words to show the word picture more clearly. This is My body; and He broke the bread. This is my blood, which was poured. The bread and wine were explicitly chosen as visual symbol as well as for the other symbolic values attached to those particular items.

This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs… yet again we clearly see the teaching intent and none of believe it literally.

Bear this in mind: Jesus words at the Last Supper and Jesus words in His parables are very different. In other places he said, “I am the door”: here He said “This is my body”. Any student of grammar will admit that there is a huge difference between Jesus saying in a general, metaphorical sense, “I am bread and wine”, and what He actually said, “This [specific, literal] is my body” and “This [specific, literal] is my blood”. No matter what view you hold, it cannot be denied that the Eucharist is the only place where Jesus links a particular, tangible object with Himself in this fashion, rather than in a mere, general symbolic way.

Besides, Jesus was very careful to make sure that His disciples did not misunderstand Him. I find it hard to believe that John held a symbolic view of the Eucharist and John’s disciple Ignatius held a literalist view.

Just an observation…

 

[Per_Crucem]

Bear this in mind: Jesus words at the Last Supper and Jesus words in His parables are very different. In other places he said, “I am the door”: here He said “This is my body”. Any student of grammar will admit that there is a huge difference between Jesus saying in a general, metaphorical sense, “I am bread and wine”, and what He actually said, “This [specific, literal] is my body” and “This [specific, literal] is my blood”. No matter what view you hold, it cannot be denied that the Eucharist is the only place where Jesus links a particular, tangible object with Himself in this fashion, rather than in a mere, general symbolic way.

Besides, Jesus was very careful to make sure that His disciples did not misunderstand Him. I find it hard to believe that John held a symbolic view of the Eucharist and John’s disciple Ignatius held a literalist view.

Just an observation…

Amen.

 

[Faithdancer]

Just want to point out the obvious- there is a huge difference between “spiritual presence” and “purely symbolic.” A huge difference, since the former belief declares that Christ is present and the latter viewpoint seems to leave the presence of Christ in question.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Just want to point out the obvious- there is a huge difference between “spiritual presence” and “purely symbolic.” A huge difference, since the former belief declares that Christ is present and the latter viewpoint seems to leave the presence of Christ in question.

The other obvious being that Christ said:

**This is my body… this is my blood.
**
He didn’t say: This is only the spiritual presence of my body… this is only the spiritual presence of my blood.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

The other obvious being that Christ said:

**This is my body… this is my blood.
**
He didn’t say: This is only the spiritual presence of my body… this is only the spiritual presence of my blood.

Precisely. In other passages, He promised a “spiritual presence” (see Matt. 18:20), but only in the Eucharist did He speak of the physical Body and Blood. 1 Cor. 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

Of course, just to clarify, the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist in a non-scientific way. The Real Presence is certainly a mysterious, sacramental, and (to a certain extent) spiritual presence, for it is a miracle and does not conform to the normal laws of physics. Nevertheless, the Eucharist becomes (or at least contains) the actual, physical Body and Blood of Christ. It is not the same as a hunk of flesh or a flagon of blood sitting there, for it is the living Christ: but in a miraculous way, Our Lord indwells the appearances of of bread and wine with His real Flesh, real Soul, and real Divinity. Therefore, we can truly say that every particle of the Eucharist, after consecration, is—somehow, inexplicably, wonderfully—the very same Jesus that the disciples saw in Judea.

I think that the idea of a “spiritual presence” really comes down to the belief that Jesus’ Body and Blood are NOT there, just His Soul and Spirit. But, that is not what He said.

As Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “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.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

With all the scriptural and historic ecclesiastical development, I am confused why one would reject the Real Presence.

 

[Faithdancer]

He didn’t say: This is only the spiritual presence of my body… this is only the spiritual presence of my blood.

Why “only?” Is Christ’s spiritual presence any less significant or powerful than if His actual flesh and blood were present?

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

This is a reasonable assessment of Calvin’s position. Of course, Calvin and Zwingli both rejected sacerdotalism and the need for a priest to act as go between in the act of communion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why “only?” Is Christ’s spiritual presence any less significant or powerful than if His actual flesh and blood were present?

Because both His spiritual and physical presence are in the hosts.

Who are you or anyone else to say otherwise?

By taking away the physical, you take away from what Christ said.

 

[Kliska]

The commercial is not Christ.

With Christ, everything is different.

I’m not making light of it, but it isn’t really different. Jesus still used human language to communicate, and every language has ways of adding in symbol, parable, and metaphor. Jesus did it all the time.

Luke 18:17 "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Christ says He’s the door, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says He’s the vine, I say, Yes Sir.
Christ says that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, I say, Yes Sir.

But there’s a problem. I say the exact same while understanding that He is not a literal plant with chlorophyll, He is not a literal door with hinges and a doorknob.

 

[Kliska]

Bad example! Comparing a drug commercial to Jesus teachings is an insult!

No, it isn’t. Jesus came to us as an actual human speaking actual languages using actual parables, presenting His teachings in a way that humans could understand if they were willing to. It is a valid and logical comparison to use because it is one we are familiar with that illustrates my point in a very straightforward manner.

BTW: Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek!

I would imagine He could and did speak many languages, but the NT manuscripts are mainly in Greek. And, that is for a reason, or several reasons. But that’s beside the point.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

No, it isn’t. Jesus came to us as an actual human speaking actual languages using actual parables, presenting His teachings in a way that humans could understand if they were willing to. It is a valid and logical comparison to use because it is one we are familiar with that illustrates my point in a very straightforward manner.

Exactly. Jesus did not desire there to be misunderstandings of His words of deeds. That is why He spoke so clearly in John 6.

Imagine you are a disciple of Christ; you have seen Him change water to wine; you have heard Him silence the raging storms of Galilee; you have felt His power raise men from the dead. You are ready to believe anything, no matter how unlikely, that your Lord says or promises. Therefore, when Jesus said “this is my body”, how do you think you (as a disciple) would have understood his words? Our Savior was no mere man, after all.

If He meant it to be symbolic, why did He allow such vast misunderstandings to creep in in the generation following the Apostles? Is it really rational to believe that?

Just a thought…

 

[Faithdancer]

Because both His spiritual and physical presence are in the hosts.

Who are you or anyone else to say otherwise?

By taking away the physical, you take away from what Christ said.

You didn’t answer my question, but that’s okay, you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m not making light of it, but it isn’t really different. Jesus still used human language to communicate, and every language has ways of adding in symbol, parable, and metaphor. Jesus did it all the time.

But there’s a problem. I say the exact same while understanding that He is not a literal plant with chlorophyll, He is not a literal door with hinges and a doorknob.

Exactly, and its cute that some choose to get rigidly literal in some places (e.g. John 6) and metaphorical in others. But wait- isn’t that what Protestants are always accused of??

 

[Mystical_Poet]

Exactly, and its cute that some choose to get rigidly literal in some places (e.g. John 6) and metaphorical in others. But wait- isn’t that what Protestants are always accused of??

Well, where Christ works miracles, I can’t help but be literal! There were no “allegorical interpreters” at the marriage in Cana, and there were none when He multiplied the loaves and fishes. Besides, in John 6, which is the only place Jesus elaborates on the Eucharist, He made it quite clear that it wasn’t merely symbolic. The listening Jews and even the disciples wanted His words to be allegorical, but Christ told them in no uncertain terms that they weren’t (“you must gnaw my flesh”). Many left Him after that, because they thought he was either speaking of cannibalism or in just plain lunacy, and Jesus didn’t stop them! If they were not going to merely trust Him that His Flesh could be eaten without being cannibalistic, than they would have to leave. Notice that Jesus said not a word about “mere symbolism”! He just rebuked carnal understanding.

Please remember also, that there was no sacrament made out of any other of Christ’s “metaphors” (He didn’t say to “open and shut the church door in memory of me”), and Paul didn’t seem to be talking about a metaphor when he said that eating or drinking the Eucharist unworthily is basically the same as homicide. After all, if I mutilate a statue or defame a symbol, I can be justly accused of anger or insanity, even malice, but definitely not of murder!

We are just interpreting the Bible, both with its literal and allegorical passages, the way the Church always has.

At least, that is my meager two cents…

 

[Faithdancer]

And Mr. Poet, you said all that without once getting sarcastic or patronizing or personal. That in itself is refreshing!