The Body and Blood are Symbolic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Eden:
I believe Calvin was the first Protestant to present the Eucharist as symbol. Why do you want to hold beliefs that were created by a man during the Reformation 1500 after Christ told us at the Last Supper “this IS my Body, this IS my blood”?
Click to expand...
Nope, Calvin believed in the true presence. Zwingley was the first.
 
40.png
jim1130:
A, B, C, and D are the ONLY options. Peace.
Click to expand...
No, they are not the only options. Totally left out of this thread is the Eastern approach to Real Presence and sacramental theology.

My own United Methodist official position on Real Presence mirrors more the Eastern position, which is not surprising since John Wesley was influenced by the Early Church Fathers and Eastern divines. The Eastern approach tends to be to embrace the Real Presence while not needing to explain it or understand it in rational terms. More and more, the E.O.'s are not using the term transubstantiation, because it’s simply the wrong science and philosophical mode to “explain” a mystery (in Latin, sacrament is mysterion). While this has probably been a set-back to some ecumenical conversations, most of the time the Easterners simply don’t understand the Western need to explain everything. Transubstantiation was born out of 11th century rationalism and Thomism. Before that, the Body and Blood of of Christ was… the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of story.

There also seems to be some misinformation. Calvin wasn’t the father of “Real Absence” eucharistic theology; that was Ullrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer. And Luther never ever said the word “Consubstantiation.” If you look at official Lutheran Church stances, you won’t find that word present there, either.

There’s also some disturbing conversation here about symbol and sign. In the most elemental understandings of eucharistic theology, a sacrament is a “sign/action” (in the words of Catholic scholar E. Schillebeeckx). Moreover, the eucharistic elements of wine and bread serve as symbols that point to/and are the body and blood of Christ (from Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer). In other words, the wine/blood and body/bread ARE symbolic AND real. There’s no such thing as something being just symbolic. Symbols point toward realities.

In today’s 21st century, where people don’t talk (much less study) the language of Thomism and 11th century philosophy, it’s probably more helpful to use the term transsignification than transubstantiation (again, borrowing from Schillebeeckx). The sacramental change is a change of significance. It is bread and wine… AND by the Holy Spirit at the epiclesis it is ALSO the Body and Blood of Christ.

Sacraments are the presence of Christ and the essence of the mystery of faith as we proclaim the memorial acclamation: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”

Sacraments are a both/and, not an either/or!

O+
 
Blessings, everyone.

What about this passage:

The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Seems like when we consume Christ, we are consuming his very words to us.
 
40.png
neweyes:
Blessings, everyone.

What about this passage:

The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Seems like when we consume Christ, we are consuming his very words to us.
Click to expand...
The Word became flesh means that when God gave His word to the Jews that they would receive a Messiah, His word (or His promise) became realized in the God incarnate Christ.

In other words - Jesus is “the Word” (the promise), not His words are flesh. When we consume the Word in this context it means we consume Jesus Christ.
 
I didn’t grow up in the Catholic church, so that concept blows my mind. 🙂
 
40.png
neweyes:
I didn’t grow up in the Catholic church, so that concept blows my mind. 🙂
Click to expand...
It did for the disciples to - “that is a hard saying”. I can imagine it would be if you have never heard it before!

:blessyou:
 
Frankly I find it amazing that many will not believe what the Early Fathers taught regarding the Eucharist. Proof has been given again and again. Quotes from before the bible was ever complied and quotes after the canon was complied. Show some quotes from the Early Fathers and from the Fathers after the Bible was complied that the Eucharist is just a symbol. Proof is given what the apostles taught the Early Fathers. Non-believers refuse to believe how the Early Fathers interpreted scripture regarding the Eucharist, yet will believe some heretic from the 1500’s that say it was only a symbol. Why do they throw away 2000 years of Church belief and jump on the bandwagon of 500 years ago. Makes no sense. Did Jesus let His Church be wrong for 1500 years until these deformers came? You go ahead and believe the way **you **want. As for me, I will believe the way **Jesus **wants. He instituted His Church and His Church knows better.
 
40.png
neweyes:
Blessings, everyone.

What about this passage:

The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Seems like when we consume Christ, we are consuming his very words to us.
Click to expand...
He is The Word. Word is a translation from the Greek word Logos. The Word is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity.

God bless!

P.S. You should check out: newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
 
A few facts

The entire Catholic Church believes in the transsubstantian (Eucharist)
The Orthox Christian churches the same
The Anglican …
Most Luthern…

Not until later much later durring the protestant movement did people start preaching that the Body and Blood is symbolic.

Yes this was a hard belief even when Jesus spoke those words, and several of his disciples went back to their old traditions.

This indeed is a hard teaching, maybe even harder today than it was from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, as time moves forward we get ingrained into our minds and cultures that this is correct and this is wrong.

Many Catholics today do not practice NFP they use condoms and Birth Control, which is a very deadly sin when you read the scripture, we all have our vices in life and we try everyday to turn those vices into virtues, to me as a new catholic the Eucharist is the heart of the Church.
 
O.S. Luke:
The Eastern approach tends to be to embrace the Real Presence while not needing to explain it or understand it in rational terms. More and more, the E.O.'s are not using the term transubstantiation, because it’s simply the wrong science and philosophical mode to “explain” a mystery (in Latin, sacrament is mysterion). While this has probably been a set-back to some ecumenical conversations, most of the time the Easterners simply don’t understand the Western need to explain everything.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church continues to understand the Holy Eucharist as a mystery. We are humans and we need words to communicate. The Eucharist was being attacked by the protestant proponents of “the real absence” and the Church was defending doctrine. Even the great Orthodox Saint, John of Kronstadt, uses the word “transubstantiation” when describing the change.

In the perpetual miracle of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ united with His Divinity and soul, I see the miracle of the perpetual quickening of man by the divine breathing, and of his creation into a living soul. It is written: “And man became a living soul,” but upon the Holy Alter the bread and wine, after their** transubstantiation** become not only a living soul, but a quickening spirit.
St John** of Kronstadt**

Thou dost not test our faith more than it can bear, for Thou dost not transubstantiate a lump of earth into Thy most-pure Body, but white bread, soft, clean, pleasant to the taste; and Thou dost not create Thy Blood from water, but from wine, called in Holy Scripture the blood of the grape, corresponding in colour to that of blood, agreeable to the taste, and rejoicing the heart of man.
St John** of Kronstadt**
 
Below is the text of part of the Didache. NB this comes way after many instructions re how to live the way of life that is Life.

There is some thinking that maybe there have always been two traditions here?

The Didache is now thought to be 50- 120 C.E.

Didache 9:1
But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.

Didache 9:2
First, as regards the cup:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the holy vine of Thy son David,
which Thou madest known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:3
Then as regarding the broken bread:
We give Thee thanks, O our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which Thou didst make known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 9:4
As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains
and being gathered together became one,
so may Thy Church be gathered together
from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
for Thine is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.

Didache 9:5
But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Didache 10:1
And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:

Didache 10:2
We give Thee thanks, Holy Father,
for Thy holy name,
which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality,
which Thou hast made known unto us
through Thy Son Jesus;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:3
Thou, Almighty Master,
didst create all things for Thy name’s sake,
and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.

Didache 10:4
Before all things we give Thee thanks
that Thou art powerful;
Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:5
Remember, Lord, Thy Church
to deliver it from all evil
and to perfect it in Thy love;
and gather it together from the four winds- even the Church which has been sanctified-
into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Didache 10:6
May grace come and may this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David.
If any man is holy, let him come;
if any man is not, let him repent.
Maran Atha. Amen.

Didache 10:7
But permit the prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Didache 11:1
Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him;
 
How is the quote above from the Didache contradicting the Real Presence?
 
40.png
Mickey:
The Catholic Church continues to understand the Holy Eucharist as a mystery. We are humans and we need words to communicate. The Eucharist was being attacked by the protestant proponents of “the real absence” and the Church was defending doctrine. Even the great Orthodox Saint, John of Kronstadt, uses the word “transubstantiation” when describing the change.
Click to expand...
Uh… Protestants didn’t exist until the 16th century. Transubstantiation became dogma in the 11th century.

As far as “Real Absence” is concerned, Martin Luther vehemiently fought Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, and condemned Zwingli’s stand at the Formula of Concord:
To them (Zwinglians) the word “spiritual” means no more than the presence of Christ’s spirit, or the power of Christ’s absent body, or his merit. They deny that the body of Christ is present in any manner or way, since in their opinion it is confined to the highest heaven above, whither we should ascend with the thoughts of our faith and there, but not in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, seek the body and blood of Christ - Formula of Concord, “Epitome”, VII.5
Click to expand...
At Marburg, Zwingli said that Christ’s words weren’t to be taken literally. But Luther said that Christ meant what he commanded: “Do this in anamnesis of me.” That it wasn’t metaphor or simile. Luther even said in the heat of the argument, “If God commands me to eat dung, than dung I shall eat.”

It’s a little more blunt in German. 🙂

O+
 
40.png
Gnosis:
I think it is rather clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically in regards to his discourse in the Gospel fof John. While some have pointed out that Jesus was using literal language, this does not neccessarily imply that he was speaking of his flesh being “literal bread”.

I think this argument is a bit of a stretch, I don’t understand how you are reading symboliism out of that in any way - Take notice of 2 VERY significant things in these passages. The first is that Jesus repeats over and over this idea of being the bread from Heaven. He stresses again and again, you must eat his flesh to have eternal life. Second, not only does he stress it again and again to focus on the importance of the truth of what he is saying, but many of those listening to him turn and leave in disbelief! This is not his usual analogy…Nobody LEFT the Messiah all together when he referred to himself as the light, or the door to Heaven, or the vine… you did not see people walking through doors in rememberance of Him after those words were said symbolicly - you have to place yourself in this situation, had it been stated like his usual analogies, there would have been no reason for the confusion, there would have been no reason for people to LEAVE HIM over confusion about an analogy. They leave him because the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood is too much for them to hear, they can’t understand it… imagine, this is like nothing they had heard before.

There is nothing else like this in Scripture, it is truly powerful, and as REAL as it gets - I find it hard to believe that the conviction here in the words of Jesus Christ do not come out of the pages of Scripture and hit those who read it right in the heart.

I’ll pray for you brother, you are missing out on one of the greatest gifts our Lord gave to us!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Jesus is known to place an over-emphasis on certain aspects of his teachings, and he is known not to say things in the clearest manner. Thus, I think he intentionally caused confusion when stressing the cannibalistic nature of what he was saying. The crowd had already expressed that it was suspicious of what he was saying. Thus, what he said would further push away those who would not accept his message, while draw another level of intimacy with those who did accept his message. .
Click to expand...
Wow I thought it was the Catholics who over-complicate the Word of God, Protestants say Christ’s message is simple… but now he wants to be confusing? I guess it depends on his mood… 😃
 
I continue to be amazed at the signs I have been given,…but never open my eyes to the questions being posed.

The Basilian monk in Lanciano had a similar question regarding this “symbolic” question as he too was human. There was a miracle in 700 there that probably didn’t get the significance it deserved until the technology of the 20th century provided confirmation to such a degree that it is amazing that this event is still so widely unknown today.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

trosch.org/inx/lanciano.html

I would like to think if we had the communication channels available today versus the tools in the 16th century, the Protestant search for power/questions/answers would have been altered and these items would be more on serving our Lord first.

If the body and blood of Christ were to be symbolic, help me with this event in Lanciano please.
 
O.S. Luke:
Uh… Protestants didn’t exist until the 16th century. Transubstantiation became dogma in the 11th century.
Click to expand...
Uh…I said the Catholics were defending the doctrine. I know that the word was used earlier.
O.S. Luke:
As far as “Real Absence” is concerned, Martin Luther vehemiently fought Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, and condemned Zwingli’s stand at the Formula of Concord:
Click to expand...
Yep.
O.S. Luke:
At Marburg, Zwingli said that Christ’s words weren’t to be taken literally. But Luther said that Christ meant what he commanded: “Do this in anamnesis of me.” That it wasn’t metaphor or simile. Luther even said in the heat of the argument, “If God commands me to eat dung, than dung I shall eat.”+
Click to expand...
Ol’ Marty was good for those one-liners. 😃
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Jesus intentionally confused his audience before.

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

It was only to his inmost circle of followers that he would explain these parables. As noted, Jesus makes many claims in the Gospel of John, many of which he does not explain.

In the case of “You must eat my flesh”, I don’t think his disciples originally understood what he was saying, but they took it on faith. It was only after his crucifixion that they understood what he had meant. For his death had given them life.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with accepting this as mere symbolism though… unlike previous parables where what he compared himself to things that OBVIOUSLY could not be: Jesus was NOT phyiscally a ray of light, nor as a human could he ever be mistaken for one… Jesus was not a door, and I would have loved to see some of his disicples try and walk through him… and Jesus was not PHYSICALLY a vine… these things could all be seen, and understood even in the simplest of minds to be symbolic… but EAT MY FLESH? DRINK MY BLOOD?.. people COULD have, potentionally, if they were deluded enough, eaten His flesh, and drank His blood as he stood right there… there was no typical symbolism here, this was ONLY truth in some way, and so how does he make it real? He promises them that through bread and wine, will become His flesh and blood, and with it His soul and divinity to extend eternal life to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top