Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[bogeydogg]

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.

OK… so then you are comparing the words of an anti-drug television advertisement to the infallible word of the Lord who cannot lie.

I thought my answer covered it quite well because I, well, ignored your analogy as being so obviously bad.

And there is good reason reason in the Greek, Jesus does not say, “This bread is ‘like’ my body.” To argue since he spoke clearly but didn’t go out of way to specifically include the explanation of, “no really guys I want to be clear this is not a metaphor,” is just silly. Especially given the reaction of his followers in John 6 that show they understood exactly what he meant.

It’s exactly the same argument of all those who say, “Well he never said in bold face type ‘I AM GOD’ so he therefore never claimed to be God.” Well yes did and you can see from scripture that obviously those who heard him understood his claims.

Surely your protestant preacher does not insist that since Jesus never excluded the proviso that we might take his words, “Before Abraham was I am” to be metaphorical we therefore must take his divinity with a grain of salt.

This is a silly argument.

God Bless

 

[Brywan]

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?

This was the nagging dilemma which finally nudged me into the Catholic Church–I pictured the history of the church as a 2000 year timeline and realized–if Protestant teaching was correct–that for 75% of that timeline, the Church had been in terrible error. By 1500, the Eucharist–the real presence of Christ, and the sacrifice of the Mass–was at the CENTER of the Church’s life and liturgy–and not just in Catholicism, but in Eastern Orthodoxy as well. And this wasn’t some trifling error–like a personal preference–like I prefer the hymn Blessed Be the Tie that Binds with organ accompaniment , but you prefer a souped-up version of Amazing Grace with guitars and drums. If this was an error, it was HUGE…it was blasphemy, the worst kind of idolatry…Therefore, for 75% of Church history (most of its history), the Church was in terrible error about something critically important.

But wait a minute! Didn’t Christ promise to lead the Church into ALL the truth?!!! How could He allow the Church to wander so far astray from the Truth for most of its history? Why would a Good Shepherd allow the sheep to wander so far from the fold?! It didn’t add up.

Along with a lot of other things about the history of the Church , it didn’t add up…

I started wondering, “what if the Catholics and the Orthodox have it right on this?”

I knew, that if they were right about this, it demanded my attention.

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

It is a bad example because…

1. You are using something very obviously non-scriptural (ahem… sola scriptura) to argue the point while using not one jot of actual inspired by the Word of God Scripture to back up your argument, and that is a problem.
2. It is very clearly the intent of the commercial to make a point about the effects of drugs on the human brain not to create confusion about what exactly constitutes a brain.
3. It is obvious from Jesus words in Scripture (quoted four times not only once by the way) and from John 6 that in no fashion whatsoever are we to understand the elements of the Sacrament to be anything other than what Christ said they were. Especially given that St Paul warns that those who fail to discern the Body and Blood will eat and drink condemnation on themselves.

So you are correct, the Lord did use words and did want us to understand him correctly and so he was therefore absolutely clear about what exactly it was he meant to say. In much the same way the obvious metaphor of the egg commercial is trying to make a lasting effect by it metaphor, it is actually quite clear from Scripture that Jesus was attempting to make and obvious effect by his lack of metaphor.

And to plead to the Greek to search and hunt for possible clues (which aren’t there) to try and muddy the absolutely crystal clear meaning of Christ’s words is the worst form of special pleading. As is claiming we have failed to understand your analogy we don’t accept it.

So let’s go over the Greek.

Ὁμοία (Like) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ βασιλεία (the Kingdom) τῶν οὐρανῶν (of Heaven) κόκκῳ (to a grain) σινάπεως (of mustard seed) Matthew 13. Very famous and an obvious analogy. You will notice the word Ὁμοία (homoia) the left-leaning jot makes the ‘H’ sound. It is from the root word; ὅμοιος (homoios) which is an adjective meaning:
like, similar, resembling
like: i.e. resembling
like: i.e. corresponding to a thing

It appears 47 times in the New Testament and it always means “like” or “unto” in the KJV.

Now let’s look at the Last Supper, and we’ll use Matthew to be consistent.

Ἐσθιόντων (were eating) δὲ αὐτῶν (as they) λαβὼν (took) ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) τὸν ἄρτον (the bread) καὶ εὐλογήσας (and blessed, actually spoke well the word is eulogaysas as in eulogy) ἔκλασεν (broke it) καὶ ἐδίδου (and gave) τοῖς μαθηταῖς (to the learners) καὶ εἶπεν (and said) Λάβετε (take) φάγετε (you eat) τοῦτό (this) ἐστιν (is) τὸ σῶμά (the body) μου (me, but its from the greek word ‘ego’ which means ‘I Am’, you know as in “I am He”.)

So the word in question here would not be σῶμά (soma) though it does appear 146 times and is translated ‘body’ 144 ‘bodily’ once and ‘slave’ once.

It seems the word in question would be ἐστιν (estin) ‘is’. This word is a verb it means “He/she/it is.” 744 times in the New Testament it is used to mean “is”. 116 times it mean “are/was/be/have” and it is untranslated or miscellaneously used 41 times (because the Greek can be a little uncertain in the New Testament such as in Revelation.

So 860 out of 901 times (95.45% of the time) it is used it means ‘is’ or ‘to be’.

So in answer to your question, “Is there anything in the Greek to make us think Jesus may have meant something else?”

Umm… No.

God Bless

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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??

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

Oh the irony…

 

[Kliska]

It is a bad example because…

1. You are using something very obviously non-scriptural (ahem… sola scriptura) to argue the point while using not one jot of actual inspired by the Word of God Scripture to back up your argument, and that is a problem.

No, it isn’t a problem, as we use what we learn outside of scripture to make them more clear all of the time. Even in scripture people use what is around them to explain, Jesus was a fan of that type of communication.

1. It is very clearly the intent of the commercial to make a point about the effects of drugs on the human brain not to create confusion about what exactly constitutes a brain.

And that is exactly how I see what Jesus is doing by using Passover Matzoh (that particular piece) and by using Passover wine (that particular cup) in the context of the disciples sharing a Passover meal. It isn’t confusing, but rather a really clear picture.

1. It is obvious from Jesus words in Scripture (quoted four times not only once by the way) and from John 6 that in no fashion whatsoever are we to understand the elements of the Sacrament to be anything other than what Christ said they were. Especially given that St Paul warns that those who fail to discern the Body and Blood will eat and drink condemnation on themselves.

Again, John 6 is not about the Last Supper. I understand you and others disagree with that; however, I am specifically asking about the recorded word about the event of the Last Supper, because that is what Luther underscored (my main post here is to Lutherans, but Catholics are welcome to answer too).

So you are correct, the Lord did use words and did want us to understand him correctly and so he was therefore absolutely clear about what exactly it was he meant to say. In much the same way the obvious metaphor of the egg commercial is trying to make a lasting effect by it metaphor, it is actually quite clear from Scripture that Jesus was attempting to make and obvious effect by his lack of metaphor.

It’s this bit that I do not see scriptural support for.

And to plead to the Greek to search and hunt for possible clues (which aren’t there) to try and muddy the absolutely crystal clear meaning of Christ’s words is the worst form of special pleading. As is claiming we have failed to understand your analogy we don’t accept it.

It is done all the time, and in fact any serious bible scholar asks the exact same question. Again, I’ve seen the Greek, the Greek here can also be used for drawing a direct parallel instead of a literal. Just as the English can. His use of “is” at the Last supper isn’t to be compared with “like” they are two different literary devices.

So in answer to your question, “Is there anything in the Greek to make us think Jesus may have meant something else?”

You are forming a Straw Man question, here is my actual question, quoted from my post, “…what I’m asking is; does the Greek words chosen at the Last Supper preclude a direct metaphor?” From what I understand from my studies, the answer is “no.” Even if someone is arguing from the hypothesized Aramaic, I understand that wouldn’t preclude a metaphor either.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

English is my 2nd language, but I am fairly certain that when a person asks why and the other person answers with because - there is a response present.

I do happen to be entitled to my interpretation but I can’t really claim it to be my interpretation. Thank God, I am much more humble than that.

 

[rcwitness]

And that is exactly how I see what Jesus is doing by using Passover Matzoh (that particular piece) and by using Passover wine (that particular cup) in the context of the disciples sharing a Passover meal. It isn’t confusing, but rather a really clear picture.

What Jesus is offering us, is what is within the Eucharist!!! It is NOT a mere symbol, yet the symbolic meanings behind mere bread and wine are not for no purpose. You see, bread and wine symbolize joy/fellowship and work/labor. We offer our joy/fellowship to the Lord, and give thanks for His joy/fellowship with us. Yet, to discern the True body and blood of Jesus is to raise our hearts to the glory that ALL THINGS are created through Him! We are redeemed through His flesh, we are forgiven through His flesh, we are new creatures through His flesh!!! NO ONE can NOT believe these things and eat at the table of Our Eucharist worthily.

Again, John 6 is not about the Last Supper. I understand you and others disagree with that; however, I am specifically asking about the recorded word about the event of the Last Supper, because that is what Luther underscored (my main post here is to Lutherans, but Catholics are welcome to answer too).

Its not so much that John 6 is ‘about’ the Last Supper as the Last Supper is about His whole Ministry. The Last supper is more than merely believing in the Gospel, it is participating in the Gospel. But woe to those who participate while acting in opposition to the Gospel!

John 6 is telling us that we need His physical death in order to save us. Those who accept His death in the flesh, eat this meal as thankfull children. John 6 and the Last Supper are in perfect harmony with each other.

Just as He told us, “Whoever believes AND is Baptized, will be saved.” Also whoever believes and eats at His table will be saved. It is not mere belief we are called to, but obedient and converting faith we are called to. This is most necessarily done through His Eucharistic Communion. Though, many receive Him in unworthy faith! We NEED more faithfull Children like yourself to help compel one another.

We are not saved to a mere ‘personal relationship with Jesus’, We are saved into a body of brothers and sisters!!! This one Mystical Body is made so through the one Bread who IS Jesus in the flesh, through faith AND Sacrament.

Peace Kliska,
Michael

 

[bogeydogg]

You are forming a Straw Man question, here is my actual question, quoted from my post, “…what I’m asking is; does the Greek words chosen at the Last Supper preclude a direct metaphor?” From what I understand from my studies, the answer is “no.” Even if someone is arguing from the hypothesized Aramaic, I understand that wouldn’t preclude a metaphor either.

I was not forming a straw man I was paraphrasing. A straw man by definition is an ad hominem and since I was not attacking you but instead paraphrasing what you said and not changing the meaning of your words which by definition is not a straw man.

I also find it really interesting that you view the Holy Spirit inspiring the Biblical Authors to write in Greek as “hypothesized Aramaic”, that’s a brand new one. Instead of arguing that you doubt the meaning of the word the ‘is’ is, it sounds much more like you are doubting the veracity of Scripture. ← Now see that’s a straw man… even though I think it’s not out of place.

Furthermore from which historical, literary vantage point can you stand and say, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part in me” and “take eat this is my body” have nothing to do with each other? So Christ using the same words, speaking to the same people, about the same covenant is not talking about the same thing?

Whew… OK???

I am fully aware that ‘is’ and ‘like’ are different literary devices, that is why I pointed out that Christ, who used simile to great effect and so often that he is in fact famous for it, would somehow pass over using the word “‘like’ my flesh” when he had done so many times before had he meant to say “‘like’ my flesh”. And once again, you are arguing from silence and saying, “Since he did not specifically say ‘this is not a metaphor’ we must therefore take it as a metaphor” when his other words make it clear what he did mean, and St Paul’s words make it clear how the first generation of his hearers understood what he meant.

In light of this I really don’t understand your continued complaint. You are arguing that Christ failed to make himself clear when it is plain that Christ did made himself perfectly clear, and apparently some just don’t seem to approve of what he said.

God Bless

 

[Mystical_Poet]

Kliska,
Do you really believe that the Apostles (taught by Christ) believed one thing, but that the next Christian generation and the Church for the next thousand years believed the exact opposite? Is it really reasonable to suppose that if John and Peter and Paul believed that the Eucharist was just a symbol, and taught their disciples so, that there would be absolutely no debate in the whole Church when the Real Presence was allegedly “introduced”? That the “false doctrine” would just take over without a fight?

Yet that must have been what happened…

As a fellow C.S. Lewis fan, let me end with his words: “On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern, in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…” (Letters to Malcolm)

Jesus said, “This is my body”; Paul said it is “the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ”; Ignatius said, “the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Lord Jesus”; Justin Martyr said it is “both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”; Tertullian said, “The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God”; Cyril of Jerusalem said, “the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ”; etc, etc, et al.

Why should I doubt?

 

[Kliska]

What Jesus is offering us, is what is within the Eucharist!!! It is NOT a mere symbol, yet the symbolic meanings behind mere bread and wine are not for no purpose. You see, bread and wine symbolize joy/fellowship and work/labor. We offer our joy/fellowship to the Lord, and give thanks for His joy/fellowship with us. Yet, to discern the True body and blood of Jesus is to raise our hearts to the glory that ALL THINGS are created through Him! We are redeemed through His flesh, we are forgiven through His flesh, we are new creatures through His flesh!!! NO ONE can NOT believe these things and eat at the table of Our Eucharist worthily.

We agree that it is not a “mere symbol,” as that detracts from the truth of what Jesus taught. When many of us non-Catholics speak of the symbol of something or the Spirit of something, or the meaning of something it isn’t to downplay its importance. I believe the heart of the teaching is actually what you point out; joy, fellowship, community, fellow laborers, etc… that is connected to Jesus literal and efficacious sacrifice. To discern His body and blood is to discern Him; His life, death, resurrection and the fact that He sits at the right hand of the Father even now.

I know that you see that Christians share in that belief. My concern is, and has always been, a correct understanding of what saves and what damns. Jesus saves by grace through faith. It is imperative that we have the correct faith placed on the correct target. We agree that the faith is always to be on Jesus and His righteousness, all that He is, all that He has done. We do disagree, however, on the issue of the bread literally becoming His flesh in the manner of transubstantiation. As I’ve said in other threads, I’m definitely open to being wrong, but as of yet, I just don’t see it. This specific question to Lutherans is a way to get the conversation focused on the words and context of the Last Supper proper, and to focus on the possibilities of the phrase “This is my body/blood” because of Luther’s emphasis on that key phrase.

Grace and peace to you!
K

 

[Kliska]

I was not forming a straw man I was paraphrasing. A straw man by definition is an ad hominem and since I was not attacking you but instead paraphrasing what you said and not changing the meaning of your words which by definition is not a straw man.

Ad hominem is a different matter; ad hominem means “to the man” and is a way of dismissing the argument in favor of trying to refute it based on something about the speaker. in essence, the straw man here was changing my question to one that fit your reply instead of accurately representing my actual question, to make my point easier to refute or to downplay.

I also find it really interesting that you view the Holy Spirit inspiring the Biblical Authors to write in Greek as “hypothesized Aramaic”, that’s a brand new one. Instead of arguing that you doubt the meaning of the word the ‘is’ is, it sounds much more like you are doubting the veracity of Scripture. ← Now see that’s a straw man… even though I think it’s not out of place.

First, I don’t doubt the meaning of the word “is;” just as it can actually (think Bill Clinton) mean different things. The scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. We believe Jesus did indeed speak Aramaic, but that doesn’t help text crit when it comes to what the words were actually recorded in; Greek. But all of this is off topic to an extent.

Furthermore from which historical, literary vantage point can you stand and say, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part in me” and “take eat this is my body” have nothing to do with each other? So Christ using the same words, speaking to the same people, about the same covenant is not talking about the same thing?

He’s not talking to the same people, nor is it the same context… nor even by the same writers.

And once again, you are arguing from silence and saying, “Since he did not specifically say ‘this is not a metaphor’ we must therefore take it as a metaphor” when his other words make it clear what he did mean, and St Paul’s words make it clear how the first generation of his hearers understood what he meant.

Again a straw man; I’m not arguing from ignorance, but rather the whole entirety of scriptural content and context. Obviously we don’t agree on what Paul taught, or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

In light of this I really don’t understand your continued complaint. You are arguing that Christ failed to make himself clear when it is plain that Christ did made himself perfectly clear, and apparently some just don’t seem to approve of what he said.

Quite the contrary, I think Christ did make Himself plain, and I wholeheartedly follow and agree to what He taught. You and I just don’t agree on what that is. And yes, that means one of is wrong. What do we do? We love one another and pray for each other!

God Bless

Grace and peace to you!
K

 

[Kliska]

Kliska,
Do you really believe that the Apostles (taught by Christ) believed one thing, but that the next Christian generation and the Church for the next thousand years believed the exact opposite? Is it really reasonable to suppose that if John and Peter and Paul believed that the Eucharist was just a symbol, and taught their disciples so, that there would be absolutely no debate in the whole Church when the Real Presence was allegedly “introduced”? That the “false doctrine” would just take over without a fight?

No, I believe several things are possible, esp. after reading many of the “ECF’s” and that is that they are using Platonic thought and styles of phrases that are misinterpreted by many, although I feel some are pretty clear they do not hold to transubstantiation. But I’m not here to attack that by picking them apart; proselytization of other POV’s is not allowed, and that’s not somewhere I’m willing to go.

Further, we have evidence from scripture that even while the Apostles lived there was false teaching taking over large segments of the regional churches that were established. It took no time at all for false teaching to crop up amongst the very people taught firsthand by Apostles.

As a fellow C.S. Lewis fan, let me end with his words: “On the other hand, I get no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that…and I cannot see why this particular reminder – a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more – should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare…Yet I find no difficulty in believing that the veil between the worlds, nowhere else (for me) so opaque to the intellect, is nowhere else so thin and permeable to divine operation. Here a hand from the hidden country touches not only my soul but my body. Here the prig, the don, the modern, in me have no privilege over the savage or the child. Here is big medicine and strong magic…” (Letters to Malcolm)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So impressed by the degree of expertise on CAF; and that we would be exploring the doctrine on holy Communion 500 after the Reformation. I attended a LCMS parish school where the pastor wrote a wonderful book entitled “The Presence: An Approach to Holy Communion”. Fr von Schenk preached about the Eucharist in every school Mass. It is so much more than mere words can express:

As we seek and find our Risen Lord, we shall find our dear departed. They are with Him, and we find the reality of their continued life through Him. The saints are a part of the Church. We worship with them. They worship the Risen Christ face to face, while we worship the same Risen Christ under the veil of bread and wine at the Altar. At the Communion we are linked with heaven, with the Communion of Saints, with our loved ones. Here at the Altar, focused to a point, we find our communion with the dead; for the Altar is the closest meeting place between us and our Lord. That place must be the place of closest meeting with our dead who are in His keeping; The Altar is the trysting place where we meet our beloved Lord. It therefore, must also be the trysting place where we meet our loved ones, for they are with, the Lord.
alpb.org/presence.html

 

[Faithdancer]

Oh the irony…

These random little personal swipes don’t ruffle my feathers at all, amigo!

 

[Faithdancer]

I am determined to ignore the authors of random little personal attacks on this and all threads. Ad hominems, however covert, do nothing to further understanding.

 

[Brotherchuckles]

For all Lutherans!
Just to inform you that when you broke away from the Catholic Church, you had validly ordained Church and thus they could consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
But once these men had died, they no longer have priests who can validly do this.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

There is no problem at all.

When Jesus says He is the door, He goes and explains how it is that He is a door:

John 10:9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

When Jesus says He is the vine, He goes and explains how it is that He is a vine:

John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

When He says, the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. He does not say, I am a bread or I am a wine. The definition is given in the assertion. Because there is nothing else to make clear. This is…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am determined to ignore the authors of random little personal attacks on this and all threads. Ad hominems, however covert, do nothing to further understanding.

Here is an actual personal comment so you can have an actual reason to cry out:

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Now stop the whining and see if you can have an actual conversation without calling people cute, making ironic comments and crying attacks when there is none.

 

[rcwitness]

We agree that it is not a “mere symbol,” as that detracts from the truth of what Jesus taught. When many of us non-Catholics speak of the symbol of something or the Spirit of something, or the meaning of something it isn’t to downplay its importance. I believe the heart of the teaching is actually what you point out; joy, fellowship, community, fellow laborers, etc… that is connected to Jesus literal and efficacious sacrifice. To discern His body and blood is to discern Him; His life, death, resurrection and the fact that He sits at the right hand of the Father even now.

I know that you see that Christians share in that belief. My concern is, and has always been, a correct understanding of what saves and what damns. Jesus saves by grace through faith. It is imperative that we have the correct faith placed on the correct target. We agree that the faith is always to be on Jesus and His righteousness, all that He is, all that He has done. We do disagree, however, on the issue of the bread literally becoming His flesh in the manner of transubstantiation. As I’ve said in other threads, I’m definitely open to being wrong, but as of yet, I just don’t see it. This specific question to Lutherans is a way to get the conversation focused on the words and context of the Last Supper proper, and to focus on the possibilities of the phrase “This is my body/blood” because of Luther’s emphasis on that key phrase.

Grace and peace to you!
Kliska

id rather find what we do believe in common than what seperates us! But sometimes it means clarifying what we believe in oerder to reveal what we dont agree with.

I do acknowledge there can be a ‘seemingly’ fine line between bread with the ‘presence’ of Jesus and bread that no longer is bread, but actual ‘flesh’ of Christ. Both intentions and faiths would profess much of the same essentials about who Jesus is, what He did for us, what He is to us, and so on. But somehow, Transubstantiation is a deeper more profound action of faith and participation than a ‘spiritual’ presence. It boils down to the reality that Christs actual body and blood opened the doors of heaven for us. We are all held together through this one Word made flesh!

As someone else has quoted, and I think it strikes deep, it actually demands Catholic unity to believe in Actual flesh and blood Communion. But to me, I see the Lord instituting the Supper with this kind of dedication to us that He expresses in other ways to His Church. He says, “Whatever you bind and loosen, it will be done in heaven also.”… or “…on this rock, I will build my Church.” He speaks in a way of honoring faithfully His bride with e ery part of Himself. Of course, first and foremost He gave Himself to God, but God’s will was that He sacrifice all for mankind.

For me, it becomes more difficult to reconcile the Lord’s strong Words in John 6 with the seperated protestants who do believe and follow Jesus, yet fall short of full Communion in the Eucharist. But then I remember, that though I receive a true Sacramental Communion in the Eucharist, I constantly fall short of 100% belief in all that I do. So both of our aim should be full participation in both Sacrament and faith working in Love.

So, with respect to your posts, I would ask the same as you did of me in your thread. Please provide for me the earliest Church apologetics that clearly seperate your interpretation from a Catholic real flesh and blood Eucharist.

Peace
Michael

 

[JonNC]

For all Lutherans!
Just to inform you that when you broke away from the Catholic Church, you had validly ordained Church and thus they could consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
But once these men had died, they no longer have priests who can validly do this.

You, as a Catholic, do well to believe and profess this, as that is the position of your communion, and I will not criticize you on account of it. OTOH, we obviously disagree, and know that the presbyter ordinations, and ordinations that take place in succession are indeed valid.

Some insight from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Jon