Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[dronald]

I don’t have a backyard.

I’m afraid you ignored his point.

There are those who believe that the Holy Eucharist is simply a symbol. Jesus said that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us. Sounds kind of important. So does what we believe matter? If those of us who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist are wrong then we are guilty of idolatry. If those who believe that it is simply symbolic are wrong then they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and call down judgment upon themselves. Does it matter what we believe? I think it does.

And whatever this flesh and blood literally was, should also literally never cause us hunger or thirst as long as we’re being consistent.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m afraid you ignored his point.

Well I think the “point” was that my “backyard-” meaning my denomination- also has dogmatic accretions added on since Christ spoke the words recorded in the Gospels. However, I have no denomination and hence, no “backyard.” Hope that clarifies!

 

[Faithdancer]

To the thread in general; I’m bowing out.

Right behind ya, Kliska. I need to be about my Father’s business, preparing to preach. God bless everyone!

 

[rcwitness]

Both Clement and Origen spoke of the bread and wine being figurative. Clement is often misquoted in one section, but if you read the larger text, you get another perspective.

Same can be said for many other early Christian writings.

Tertullian is quotes are often taken out of context, like

“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.” (Notice, he does not call it body/blood like other places)

if you read the section around it, there is no context that this section is referring to Eucharist.

You can make cases from other parts of Tertullian that it is not exactly straight forward to say that he is arguing for Transubstantiation.

If in the writings, they are arguing for Real Presence, then it means that there was some debate since many of these writings are a response to another view point.

In general, misquotes and sections of a writing does not argue for what most people believed in the day. You cannot say “Because Clement wrote X, Most Christians believed X” That is just making too far a jump.

I can quote pieces of Irenaeus that seem to argue against Real Presence.

Net/Net early church writings are no way a smoking gun for what early Christians thought of communion as people think.

Thank you for providing some writings from the Fathers!!!
I never wanted a smoking gun document. Just something that supports a symbolic only interpretation of the Communion bread and wine.

As I’ve said previously, it is contained in the scriptures themselves. John’s perspective, Paul’s perspective, and the synoptics all must be self-contained on their own when it comes to explaining salvation, as well as working together. We must keep looking at the whole context of the teachings and make sure they are in harmony. I don’t see that as possible when trying to show transubstantiation from the different accounts. I don’t have a problem with the teaching at all, as long as it is truth. At this point, again, I just don’t see it…

We both believe it is contained in Scripture! But you know the contention lies in interpretation. We obviously both adhere to a different interpretation. Both believing the Holy Spirit Teaches and Confirms our Faith. Our Confirmation is more sound, since it is through an active, living, Church which practices the authority that Jesus gave her. This is a profound aspect of Communion! We are saved into a body, who is made from many members and occupy different roles. Receiving the One Loaf of Christ is an expression on our part, though that is not all that it is. There is grace through the consecrated bread wine. Just like we are saved when we believe, AND then we are saved when we are baptized. There is continual salvation or conversion through the obedience to His Sacraments.

Well stated, Kliska. The only requirement for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. As soon as an organization- a church- starts adding other requirements, that’s legalism. And as soon as a separate class of people is created to mediate between the believer and Christ by administrating said legalistic requirements- that’s sacerdotalism.

There is a faith which is opposed to the works which we were saved to do. James Teaches this. We are not saved into a scattered flock.

Clement and Origen lived and wrote in Alexandria, which had the distinct reputation for interpreting scripture **with several levels of meaning. **

Scholar Ludwig Ott wrote this: “The Alexandrinians, St. Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen, attest the general belief of the Church that the Lord offers us the partaking of His Body and His Blood. However, due to their penchant for allegory, passages are also found in their writings, in which they use the words body and blood to signify the teaching of Christ, by which our spirits are nourished [Origen is quoted from Contra Celsum VIII,33 cf. In Num hom 7,2; In Exod hom 13,3; In Matt comm ser 85]. As, according to the usage of the Alexandrinians, the same scriptural passage can be variously interpreted, an allegorical interpretation DOES NOT EXCLUDE the possibility of a more fundamental meaning.”

lettersonorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-real-presence-of-jesus-in-the-eucharist/: “It is very important to understand what the word ‘symbol’ meant to the Fathers. In the Greek (which is how the majority of the Fathers would be using it), the word does NOT mean substitution or in place of. It is a compound word made up of sym (meaning together) and ballon (meaning to throw). Thus, a symbol is something where two unlike things are thrown together. Thus, the Eucharist is a symbol because the mundane bread and wine are thrown together with the divine presence of Christ. The Eucharist is BOTH bread and wine AND the body and the blood of Christ. This is how it is a symbol"

Therefore, in my opinion, even though Clement and Origen were influenced by the theological allegorizing prevalent in Alexandria, and even though they found several layers of meaning to many, many texts, they both nevertheless believed in a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is a symbol, but it is not just a symbol: it also contains—somehow, mysteriously, spiritually but truly—both the Flesh and Spirit of Christ.

Here is a good website for you to look at: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html

Thanks Kliska and Faithdancer

 

[Christopher1111]

There is a big reason why many can not see the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. First, Jesus performs a miracle with bread, then He goes on to say this in JN 6:44…“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” If we are not drawn to the Living Bread, the Bread of Life then we can not see it! It was the same as Peters confession of who Jesus was, all the other apostles knew Jesus well and knew His words, but only Peter saw Jesus for who He was, the Real Presence of the Son of God! And what did Jesus do, He made it clear that Peter knew only because the Father in heaven revealed it to him! Another example of what I’m trying to say…take the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Those boys were on fire with the Word of God and burning with His love, but guess what? They couldn’t see Jesus who was right in front of their face until…? That’s right, until Jesus revealed Himself to them in the breaking of the bread! And it wasn’t a coincidence or an accident that He chose to reveal Himself in the breaking of the bread!!!

You can give a mountain of proof to those who do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, no proof is enough to open their eyes, their eyes will only be open when Christ reveals this truth to them!

 

[SteveVH]

It is also why He lead certain people to write down His word, not just speak it orally, because oral transmission is notoriously hinky and people can form straw men more easily from what is said and not written to double check against.

Not when one is led into all truth under the protection of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ himself. You forget that this is not man’s Church, but rather Christ’s Church, and therefore we are not subject to the flaws and weaknesses of man when guarding and teaching the truth handed down to us by the Apostles.

The church, as a communal whole has a job; to preach Christ and Him crucified (and raised). There were those early in the church, taught by the Apostles that were flat out wrong and teaching heresy.

Yes, and the Church, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, discerned that what these people were teaching was heresy which is the only way you know that they were heretics. Their various theologies and beliefs never changed the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.

Further, Jesus Himself asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returned. We are warned again and again and again that false teaching is not only possible, but actual and that Paul himself could teach error and if he did, let him be accursed. You and I see the church and what God promised us very differently.

Yes, you are correct. We see the Church that God promised us very differently. Everything I believe about the Church is based on those promises of Christ. I believe that the Church has the power to bind in heaven what it binds on earth and loose in heaven what it looses on earth. I believe that the Church has the power and authority to forgive sins. I believe the Church is led into ALL truth by the Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus will never leave us orphans and will remain with his Church until the end of time. Do you believe these things?

There are many false teachers and many, many struggling to have any faith at all. The Church may, indeed, become much smaller before it is all over. But the truth that exists within the Church will never be compromised, even if there are only a few left on earth who may believe it. The question I have for you is this: On what authority do you rely in order to discern truth from error? It seems that you rely entirely on yourself and your own, private interpretation of Scripture. This is exactly how error enters in. We must be obedient to the Church as we are obedient to Christ. When we turn our back on the Church in favor of our own ideas and interpretations and beliefs we get into trouble in a hurry.

To the thread in general; I’m bowing out.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[rcwitness]

Clement and Origen lived and wrote in Alexandria, which had the distinct reputation for interpreting scripture with several levels of meaning.

lettersonorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-real-presence-of-jesus-in-the-eucharist/: “It is very important to understand what the word ‘symbol’ meant to the Fathers. In the Greek (which is how the majority of the Fathers would be using it), the word does NOT mean substitution or in place of. It is a compound word made up of sym (meaning together) and ballon (meaning to throw). Thus, a symbol is something where two unlike things are thrown together. Thus, the Eucharist is a symbol because the mundane bread and wine are thrown together with the divine presence of Christ. The Eucharist is BOTH bread and wine AND the body and the blood of Christ. This is how it is a symbol.”

Protestant Theologian Darwell Stone: “As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning ‘symbol’ would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness. ‘What we nowadays,’ he writes, ‘understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’”

Finally,let me quote Darwell Stone again: “The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.”

The Eucharist is a symbol, but it is not just a symbol: it also contains—somehow, mysteriously, spiritually but truly—both the Flesh and Spirit of Christ.

Here is a good website for you to look at: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html

I just wanted to address this post again. Thanks Mystical Poet

I actually like Origen’s teachings about the Eucharist for the very reasons you have acknowledged. He recognizes the symbolic aspects of Jesus as the Bread of Life in Word and in real flesh and blood! This is the annointing of the Father on Him… On the flesh from Mary the Virgin. His Spirit and Word was united with our humanity from all eternity! Who is anyone to seperate them!!! This is our faith in receiving His Flesh which took on our salvation.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Nicea325]

Well I think the “point” was that my “backyard-” meaning my denomination- also has dogmatic accretions added on since Christ spoke the words recorded in the Gospels. However, I have no denomination and hence, no “backyard.” Hope that clarifies!

So you follow this motto:

I.B.J?

(I & Bible & Jesus)

?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kliska
And of course my concern is that the ***focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ ***in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

And who do believe precisely gave us the sacraments? Is that also a RCC invention?

 

[Mystical_Poet]

I just wanted to address this post again. Thanks Mystical Poet

I actually like Origen’s teachings about the Eucharist for the very reasons you have acknowledged. He recognizes the symbolic aspects of Jesus as the Bread of Life in Word and in real flesh and blood! This is the annointing of the Father on Him… On the flesh from Mary the Virgin. His Spirit and Word was united with our humanity from all eternity! Who is anyone to seperate them!!! This is our faith in receiving His Flesh which took on our salvation.

Peace,
Michael

Thanks for your encouragement!

In certain ways I can definitely relate to Origen and the Alexandrians, especially with my poetical bent. In writing poetry, or in reading symbolically, or in delving into the mysteries of life, men tend to see many layers of meaning and use words and metaphors and allegories that are other than the usual, in order to express or clarify the ecstasy and beauty that they see and feel. The wonderful thing about Truth is that it is infinite, and numberless manifestations can be derived from one aspect. Truth is not an either/or business, it is both/and!

Not only is God is immanent, permeating and sustaining everything, but He is also utterly transcendent, far beyond anything we can think or imagine. Not only did Israel historically conquer the promised land, but Christians are given dominion over the world, and each believer is called to fight the dragons of his own heart. And, of course, not only is the Eucharist the Real Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ’s words are spiritual food and faith is our spiritual mouth. Just because a writer uses the allegorical meaning of a Scripture, by no way diminishes his belief in the literal one!

It’s amazing how rich Truth is!

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks for your encouragement!

In certain ways I can definitely relate to Origen and the Alexandrians, especially with my poetical bent. **In writing poetry, or in reading symbolically, or in delving into the mysteries of life, men tend to see many layers of meaning and use words and metaphors and allegories that are other than the usual, in order to express or clarify the ecstasy and beauty that they see and feel. **The wonderful thing about Truth is that it is infinite, and numberless manifestations can be derived from one aspect. Truth is not an either/or business, it is both/and!

Yes. I dont read too much poetry, other than Poe, but I think there is definite poetry in the life of Christ. Especially in His mother! Through the heart of Mary, we receive Our Eucharist. “She kept all these things in her heart.” And “In Christ is hidden the whole treasure of wisdom.”

Peace
Michael

 

[Brotherchuckles]

Further info on the Real Presence in the Eucharist:

Is the Eucharist Truly the Body and Blood of Christ?

In his First Letter to the Corinthians (see 11:23-26), St. Paul echoes the words of Jesus over the bread and wine at the first Eucharist (the Last Supper): "This is my body... This is my blood" (Mt 26:26-28). Nothing in these passages suggests that our Lord was speaking only symbolically.

In fact, Jesus stated repeatedly that whoever would eat his flesh and drink his blood would have eternal life (see Jn 6:51-56). When some of his listeners had objected to this statement and had left him as a result (see Jn 6:52, 60, 66), he didn't call them back, saying, "Wait a minute! You misunderstood! I was only speaking symbolically." Instead, he let them go.

If they had in fact misunderstood Jesus -- if he had been speaking only figuratively -- would he have let them go, considering that their eternal destiny was at stake? Wouldn't he instead have cleared up the confusion to spare them unnecessary scandal? No Doubt. But Jesus was in fact speaking literally.

Luke's account of the disciples' encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Emmaus also points to this truth. There our Lord took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them -- whereupon they recognized him, and he physically vanished from their midst (see Lk 24:30-31) Later, when they reported to the apostles what they had witnessed, they told "how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread" (Lk 24:35).

If any doubts remain about the intent of Jesus' words, we need only consult the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who learned his faith from and was consecrated as bishop by men who had been at the first Eucharist: Ignatius wrote: "The Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins and who, in his goodness, the Father raised."

The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (called "transubstantiation") is of course a mystery we will never fully understand. But even though we may find it difficult to imagine how this event takes place, we can be sure that the God who created the universe out of nothing has the power to accomplish this miracle as well.

Other related scriptures: Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20; 1 Cor 10:16

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 611, 790, 1088, 1323, 1329, 1335-1340, 1373-1377, 1382, 1390-1394, 1406, 1413, 1416, 1846, 2120.

*Quoted from The New Catholic Answer Bible. Wichita, Kansas, Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005. www.firesidecatholic.com

Additional insights at: www.catholic.com

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Bad example! Comparing a drug commercial to Jesus teachings is an insult!

Kliska:
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.

Oh yes it is a bad example! The affects and effects of taking drugs is not on the same boat as the Eucharist where it is consumed. Second, the drug commercial is not telling people about eating a brain;moreover, the egg simply “represents” what a brain looks like while using drugs. Very obvious it is not a literal brain. Do you have evidence or complaints from people who actually were confused with the commercial because they believed the egg was an actual brain? Jesus never blessed and touched a door or vine and said:

*This vine IS my body or this door IS my blood. * or…and the “vine” or “door” that I will give, is my flesh, for life of the world.

Jesus uses real consumable foods (bread & wine) and never says to consume a vine or door.

Quote:
BTW: Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek!

Kliska:
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.

It is in Greek because that was the language of commerce at the time. Just like French in the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

[Boulder257]

**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)

If they believe in this, how do they think they are getting to partake in it?

 

[JonNC]

If they believe in this, how do they think they are getting to partake in it?

My regularly called and ordained pastor repeats the verba, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Now, I am aware of our differences regarding validity of orders, and therefore sacrament, but this is how we*** know*** we are participating in His sacrament.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

One of many benefits of Vatican II & Dialogue is the standard set for Lutherans to celebrate the Eucharist weekly. To my knowledge, every parish in my synod has Mass on Sundays; some during the week or even daily.

 

[rcwitness]

One of many benefits of Vatican II & Dialogue is the standard set for Lutherans to celebrate the Eucharist weekly. To my knowledge, every parish in my synod has Mass on Sundays; some during the week or even daily.

What about ordained women in the Lutheran faith? Do they hold a valid office? Or am I misunderstood? Maybe this is divisions from Apostolic Lutherans???

Peace,
Michael

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What about ordained women in the Lutheran faith? Do they hold a valid office? Or am I misunderstood? Maybe this is divisions from Apostolic Lutherans???

Peace,
Michael

Yes, several parishes in apostolic succession have female pastors!

 

[JonNC]

What about ordained women in the Lutheran faith? Do they hold a valid office? Or am I misunderstood? Maybe this is divisions from Apostolic Lutherans???

Peace,
Michael

It certainly is.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

What about ordained women in the Lutheran faith? Do they hold a valid office? Or am I misunderstood? Maybe this is divisions from Apostolic Lutherans???

Peace,
Michael

Only the ELCA, and other church bodies which recognize a female clergy would recognize ordained women as having a valid office. They wouldn’t be from our perspective or other confessional Lutheran church bodies (LCMS, WELS, etc).