The Body and Blood are Symbolic

[Semper_Fi_1]

Daniel Marsh:

Acts 15:20
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

Daniel,

You are preaching to the choir here. However, should we really abstain from the blood of the one whose blood saves us from sin and death? Read it in context. With as many posts here at CAF that you have now, you still don’t know the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation?

Our Lord is sacramentally present in the Eucharist… not symbolically. The Catholic doctrine is that while the species of bread and wine remain as ‘accidents’ (theological term), the substance has been transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It is only the substance which changes, not the outward appearance. However, they do not stay bread and wine.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[Gnosis]

Here we have proof of transubstantiation from one of the Earliest Church Fathers:

Cyril of Jerusalem was born circa 315 CE

The Last Supper occured almost a full three centuries before that. That leaves plenty of room for the Eucharist to evolve from a very sacred symbol of Christ’s sacrifice, to being considered to be his actual blood and body.

 

[onesimplemind]

Gnosis:

Cyril of Jerusalem was born circa 315 CE

The Last Supper occured almost a full three centuries before that. That leaves plenty of room for the Eucharist to evolve from a very sacred symbol of Christ’s sacrifice, to being considered to be his actual blood and body.

1. “From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead…” Igantius of Antioch 35-107 a.d.

Does this leave enough room for you? Is just a few years after the Revelation was written down good enough?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

7. “From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead…” Igantius of Antioch 35-107 a.d.

Does this leave enough room for you? Is just a few years after the Revelation was written down good enough?

I knew someone would get around to quoting Saint Ignatius for me. Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle, the caretaker of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch is a Holy Martyr and died in Rome. We have letters of Mary responding to the letters of Ignatius, so I’m pretty sure he would know the Faith.

 

[jim1130]

Semper Fi:

I knew someone would get around to quoting Saint Ignatius for me. Saint Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle, the caretaker of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch is a Holy Martyr and died in Rome. We have letters of Mary responding to the letters of Ignatius, so I’m pretty sure he would know the Faith.

Peace.

Can we throw St. Justin Martyr into the mix, too?

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

jim1130:

Peace.

Can we throw St. Justin Martyr into the mix, too?

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Peace.

Yes! And how about St Irenaeus!

St Irenaeus

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 A.D. 189]).

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The best argument for the proof of the real presence is the Old Testament itself. The paschal sacrifice, the book of Malachi, the ‘shew-bread’, all foreshadowing the Eucharist.

 

[Mickey]

Semper Fi:

The best argument for the proof of the real presence is the Old Testament itself. The paschal sacrifice, the book of Malachi, the ‘shew-bread’, all foreshadowing the Eucharist.

It’s all throughout Sacred Scripture. It is clearly and plainly written. Yet those who were born into certain reformed beliefs cannot accept this. They will jump through hoops and twist the Scriptures in any possible way so as to confirm their revised theology. I’ve seen and heard it all. Then if you begin showing examples of the thinking of the earliest Christian saints, doctors and martyrs, it is refuted because it is not Scared Scripture. Only the Holy Spirit can lift the veil from the eyes of those who wish to remain blind.

St Theodore has an interesting quote:

"Are they [the Eucharistic elements] an image or the truth? If they are an image, what absurdity! You go from blasphemy to blasphemy, like those who step into some sort of mud, and in trying to get across fall with both feet into something even more slippery"

". . . we confess that the faithful receive the very Body and Blood of Christ, according to the voice of God Himself–why do you talk nonsense as if the sacraments of the truth were mere symbols?" (St. Theodore)

 

[Writer]

Semper Fi:

Daniel,

You are preaching to the choir here. However, should we really abstain from the blood of the one whose blood saves us from sin and death? Read it in context. With as many posts here at CAF that you have now, you still don’t know the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation?

Our Lord is sacramentally present in the Eucharist… not symbolically. The Catholic doctrine is that while the species of bread and wine remain as ‘accidents’ (theological term), the substance has been transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It is only the substance which changes, not the outward appearance. However, they do not stay bread and wine.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

The blood is more than blood in that it is the body, soul, and divinity of Christ. If we poured the sacrament onto a microscope slide, however, we are not saying that we would see the white blood cells of Jesus present. It is blood, but its outward nature remains wine. It is a mystery, but, as for me, if God says this door is a stool. I’ll take it as a stool. He is the Creator, and who are we to say in our little voices,“God, you can’t do that! It makes me uncomfortable!” It is called a mystery, folks, but I suggest we understand it as the body and blood of Christ, because this is what the disciples and early church fathers believed. Enough on the mental gymnastics to make your opposing arguments.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Only the Holy Spirit can lift the veil from the eyes of those who wish to remain blind.

Preach it Brother, Preach it!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Eden:

When He did speak metaphorically, the disciples knew it. They did not ask, “Are you really made of wood?” or “Are you really a vine?” because they knew it was metaphor just as we do.

Frankly the disciples were very thick, and often did not get what Jesus was teaching.

John 14:8
**
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?** Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The plain reading of John 6 is not literal. One must be taught that it is literal before one takes it that way. After I was born of the Spirit, I never took this text literally, and frankly, protestant churches rarely teach on the Lord’s supper, unless it is part of book study. And, they do not go past what is written.

 

[Mickey]

Daniel Marsh:

Frankly the disciples were very thick

This is your argument–the disciples were very thick?
Mama mia!

 

[ChristsSoldier]

Gnosis:

Cyril of Jerusalem was born circa 315 CE

The Last Supper occured almost a full three centuries before that. That leaves plenty of room for the Eucharist to evolve from a very sacred symbol of Christ’s sacrifice, to being considered to be his actual blood and body.

Be Blessed,
Gnosis, what is your point here? Are you suggesting that the earliest fathers saw the Host as symbol? Care to cite evidence to this? Is it that 315 years was enough time for the Catholic’s to get this all wrong? I again point to 1Cor 23. It is all there.

I agree that time allows for errors, Ulrich Zwingle had 1500 years he to get things wrong…

Peace,
CS

 

[JoeyWarren]

Daniel Marsh:

The plain reading of John 6 is not literal. One must be taught that it is literal before one takes it that way. After I was born of the Spirit, I never took this text literally, and frankly, protestant churches rarely teach on the Lord’s supper, unless it is part of book study. And, they do not go past what is written.

You should really read post #4.

Could it be one of the reasons they rarely teach on it, is that, they are terrified of it’s literal meaning, so they steer clear of it. I have a KJV study bible. The commentary on some scripture is blank if not completely twisted…

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

jesusfirst:

ok i’ve been lurking on here long enough. i’ve got the hang of things on here, which is why i’ll probably not post again.

Fredricks-you can talk till you’re blue in the face and they still won’t understand it.

the only things that happens with these type of threads, are that someone will ask a question to a pretestant- they’ll answer and the op will STILL say the same thing over and over.

why would you keep on doing that.???

sonia

who are “they”?
are you speaking of the members on this board, who belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? (myself included) The Mystical body of Christ, 2000 years old, Founded by our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ? Against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail, As promise by Christ himself.

Please do not take offence, but we do not have to argue scripture. Ad nauseum. ,We have the true teaching and practice. and we have had it from the beginning. I see by your post you are pentecostal. And such was I once. I humbly ask you to please examine the roots of this Modern day sect. It is nothing more than A resurrection of the old heresy of sabellus. classic modalism. And please do post again!
God Bless
In caritatae non ficta
(with unfeigned charity)

 

[Eden]

Daniel Marsh:

The plain reading of John 6 is not literal. One must be taught that it is literal before one takes it that way.

Can you show me your quotes from early Church Fathers illustrating that the early Christians did not believe in the Real Presence?

After I was born of the Spirit, I never took this text literally, and frankly, protestant churches rarely teach on the Lord’s supper, unless it is part of book study. And, they do not go past what is written.

John 3 is referring to baptism. All baptised Catholics have been “born of the Spirit”, yet we know that John 6 explicitly illustrates the Real Presence.

 

[jim1130]

Daniel Marsh:

The plain reading of John 6 is not literal. One must be taught that it is literal before one takes it that way. After I was born of the Spirit, I never took this text literally, and frankly, protestant churches rarely teach on the Lord’s supper, unless it is part of book study. And, they do not go past what is written.

Peace.

No offense, but you are siding with one of these positions (from “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373):

(A) Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

(B) Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

(C) Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

(D) Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

A, B, C, and D are the ONLY options.

Matthew 26:26. And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take you and eat. This is my body. 27. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14: 14:22. And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:19. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.* 20. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24. And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

(and if in Corinthians the body and blood are symbolic then why does it matter if you are unworthy since we are just talking bread and wine and not the true presence of our Divine and resurrected savior, Christ?).

Peace.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Daniel Marsh:

And, they do not go past what is written.

Really? If they don’t go past what’s written then they would not believe it is symbolic. In order to believe that it is symbolic you must read into it your own interpretation and your own tradition which was passed onto you from your parents. A plain reading of the text would tell you that Jesus meant it to be a literal eucharist… not a symbolic one. No Christian believed it was symbolic up till Huldrych Zwingli’s formulation, and even then a great number of Protestants considered his interpretation too extreme. This belief did not really take off until Oliver Cromwell took over England and instilled this belief into the mind of his subjects. Also, not all Protestants believe the Eucharist is symbolic either. There are a few who have other explanations for why it is the real presence, and there are also a few who share the orthodox Christian interpretation that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. One more thing, the word Eucharist when translated from the Greek means “Thanksgiving”. When we take part in the Eucharist we are giving thanks to the Lord for His body & blood. Not mere bread and wine.

 

[SemperJase]

Gnosis:

Jesus intentionally confused his audience before.

“He spoke everything in parables so that they may hear but not understand”

Yes, but nowhere did he mislead his audience. There is a difference between telling them something they won’t understand and leading them to believe the opposite of what you really mean. In his parables, he never left people worse off than when they began. Not so in John 6. People rejected Jesus. You are claiming that they rejected him because he purposely misled them.

The symbolism theory of John 6 means that Jesus was purposely misled people into thinking he was speaking literally. That makes Jesus a liar by omission. He isn’t.