The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[TimothyH]

This is why it is faith, and we shall only truly know with all certainty and complete understanding beyond humanness all there is to know of Him, when He comes again.

You are confusing faith and understanding. We can truly know, here and now. We can make a concious decision to believe, and that is the very defintion of faith.

Faith is not something we wake up with, a belief we suddenly get or something we come to believe because we suddently understand it. The Holy Catholic Church teaches that faith is a concious decision to believe all that God had revealed to us, simply because God is truth. And the fullness of God’s revelation comes to man exactly through the Church.

And so we can know for certain, here an now, because God established one Church, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, through which his revelation comes to man. This church tells us so. That is how we can know for sure, because his Church tells us so.

It’s a strict axiom in the Christian faith. Faith preceedes understanding. We all wait for full understanding but faith is not understanding. I believe. I make a decision to believe and then, if God wills, I will receive understanding.

-Tim-

 

[CMatt25]

You are confusing faith and understanding. We can truly know, here and now. We can make a concious decision to believe, and that is the very defintion of faith.

Faith is not something we wake up with, a belief we suddenly get or something we come to believe because we suddently understand it. The Holy Catholic Church teaches that faith is a concious decision to believe all that God had revealed to us, simply because God is truth. And the fullness of God’s revelation comes to man exactly through the Church.

And so we can know for certain, here an now, because God established one Church, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, through which his revelation comes to man. This church tells us so. That is how we can know for sure, because his Church tells us so.

It’s a strict axiom in the Christian faith. Faith preceedes understanding. We all wait for full understanding but faith is not understanding. I believe. I make a decision to believe and then, if God wills, I will receive understanding.
-Tim-

No I am not confusing anything. I understand faithful Catholics make the decision to believe the Holy Mother Church correctly has taught all truth and believe Her to be the one Church as She interprets Herself to be. Believing all She tells us. Not straying from good fruits by which we shall know them. And believing we can know with all certainty here and now as a result of that faith placed in Her.

I understand and I have no problem with that at all if that is what anyone chooses to decide to believe. So we differ little if at all. As I agree faith precedes understandng because we make the decision to either believe or not. That decision to believe requires faith.

 

[flyonthewall]

if we look at other times in the bible where eating flesh and drinking blood is used symbolically (Isaiah 10:18, Micah 3:3, Revelation 17:16, and many others…), it always means to persecute, assault, or otherwise destroy. Now why would Jesus use this kind of symbolism to describe how we should gain everlasting life?? In order to enter heaven we must attack and assault our Savior?? i dont think so…

Yet that is exactly what is being done IF He meant literally.

He would not use the connotation you describe, but the connotation as follows:

1Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.

2So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.

3And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

4¶And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them

Also, Jeremiah 15

16Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts.

And finally, Jesus Himself stated that the flesh profiteth nothing but it is the spirit that quickeneth.
It is not about physically consuming the Savior, but incorporating His spirit within you.

 

[flyonthewall]

Exactly! Until the fulfillment of Jesus the Lamb of God who takes the sin of the world.

Great!

Really? Again,where does Jesus say: THIS represents or is a symbol of my body and blood? John 6 does not suggest a symbol. Simply listen to Jesus say:

“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor!

The why didn’t he give them a vine or door when He said: I am the vine and I am the door?If the Eucharist was merely symbolic,then why did so many walk away? If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. Care to show me where in other places Jesus says I am the vine or I am the door, people really believed He was a literally a vine or door? Or where they able to comprend His metaphor?

Jesus made the statement about eating His flesh, long before the Last Supper. At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted an ordinance or a sacrament. He gave them bread and assinged the meaning of what it meant. At that time I am sure everything fell into place for the Apostles - Jesus is the Bread of Life, we are to eat bread in rememberance of the body of Christ which was broken for us. This is what He meant by eating His flesh
We are to drink wine, in rememberance of the blood of Christ that was shed for us. Jesus told them to “Do this in rememberance”
The bread and wine were emblems of His sacrifice…the atonement. When we partake of the bread and wine, we partake of the atonement, and we know it is through the atonement that we can be saved.

Those that turned away in John 6, did not understand the spirit of what He was saying, they took the words literally. Jesus even stated that His words were spirit, the meaning was spiritual, not physical.
Jesus did not try and clarify for the same reason He spoke in parables: he that hat ears, let them hear…

Really? St.Paul sure differs with your LDS belief.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. **How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? **Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. Pretty harsh words for something so symbolic.

Nothing you have cited or stated here conflicts with my belief.
Symbols are very powerful. They were used throughout the scriptures. The difference between clean and unclean has always been very serious, yet it was ritual cleansing that took care of it. Ritual cleansing was a physical symbolic action that represented spirital aspects. Yet if the ritual was not done, you remained unclean.
Same thing with the bread and wine.

Likewise,early church does not support your position,it is all a novelty a symbolic Eucharist.

The emblems of the bread and wine MEAN something. They are not empty symbols or just a novelty. That is like saying the animal sacrifice commanded in the OT was just a novelty, the symbolism did not mean anything.

BTW: How ironic to believe Jesus is God and Creator,yet God is not capable nor is it POSSIBLE, giving us His Body and Blood in two simple elements: bread and wine. How arrogant.

I didn’t say it wasn’t POSSIBLE, I am stating that I don’t believe that is what He MEANT. This is not arrogance.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Doesn’t your church use bread and water Fly…?

The bread and wine were emblems of His sacrifice…the atonement. When we partake of the bread and wine, we partake of the atonement, and we know it is through the atonement that we can be saved.

 

[flyonthewall]

[For all those who disagree with Jesus real presence in the Eucharist , may I suggest you take a look at letters of Ignatius . Or Paul . 1Cor 10 and 1Cor 11 Paul makes it very clear that the Eucharist is to be taken seriously .Now also read the Didache(teaching of the twelve) . It clearly states the importance of the Eucharist"Do not give what is sacred to dogs" The Didache was written before the gospels by some of the apostles . Would a symbol be sacred?Lets take another gander at John 6 . Look at all the sentences that involve eating the flesh and blood of Christ : Now in case you did not know the Gospels were written in Greek. And the word for eat in Greek is "Phagan " However when Jesus is speaking of eating in this part of the chapter, he uses the word (instead of Phagan) "Trogon "meaning to munch and naw. This word was used to put greater emphasis on actual eating .

I believe the Eucharist, or Sacrament, as I call it, is very important, and yes, symbols can be sacred.
Animal Sacrifice was sacred. Not just anyone could do it and there were very specific laws governing it, yet it was a symbolic act.
Ritual cleansing was sacred, very specific laws governing it, yet it was a symbolic act.
The Passover was symbolic, yet was commanded by the Lord.

It does not matter what word was used for “eat” as it was a metaphoric use of it, which is in line with How Jesus taught and instructed His followers. Even with the word for “gnaw”, it brings to mind the act of scraping every last shred of meat off the bone, accentuating the obtaining of every last word of Christ and making it part of us.
[/QUOTE]

 

[flyonthewall]

Fly,
Jesus was born in a city whose name means “House of Bread”, he was laid in a feeding trough, his first miracle involved turning water into wine. Clearly he has the power to change the substance of one thing into another…

The Passover lamb was a real lamb a prefiguring of Christ’s sacrifice. His cousin didn’t just randomly say…

[BIBLEDRB]John 1:29[/BIBLEDRB]

I agree with everything said here.
The Passover lamb was a prefiguring of Christ’s sacrifice, just as the bread and wine is a post-figuring of Christ’s sacrifice…a rememberance of it.

 

[flyonthewall]

Doesn’t your church use bread and water Fly…?

Yes, we use bread and water now. We started using bread and wine, but switched to water, as the meaning remains the same.

 

[William_Pitts]

The early Church Fathers understood what the Eucharist meant.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. ),in ANF,I:89

“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(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200), in ANF,I:486

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” “ Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:352

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, not physically but spiritually. He must undergo a supernatural rebirth. And if he is a new supernatural creature then he would require supernatural food, the body and blood of the savior, the Eucharist.

John 3:3-6 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water [Baptism?] and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[William_Pitts]

I would rather believe the writers, preachers and commentators from the early Church than to believe the theories and teachings of people who don’t even know who Jesus Christ really is.

 

[ClamDigger]

Yes, we use bread and water now. We started using bread and wine, but switched to water, as the meaning remains the same.

I mean absolutely no disrespect in asking this, so I hope my question doesn’t come off that way. I ask merely to satisfy curiosity. How does water represent the blood of Christ as well as red wine does, especially in light of the fact that he used wine at the Last Supper and not water?

 

[CMatt25]

I mean absolutely no disrespect in asking this, so I hope my question doesn’t come off that way. I ask merely to satisfy curiosity. How does water represent the blood of Christ as well as red wine does, especially in light of the fact that he used wine at the Last Supper and not water?

No wine? It didn’t matter to Jesus. He simply turned water into wine. Jn 2:1-11. So I would think Jesus might be able to understand how water could be taken to be wine. Even if He’s not here on earth to exactly change it Himself in this case.

 

[ClamDigger]

No wine? It didn’t matter to Jesus. He simply turned water into wine. Jn 2:1-11. So I would think Jesus might be able to understand how water could be taken to be wine. Even if He’s not here on earth to exactly change it Himself in this case.

So you believe that Jesus turns water into wine while still retaining it’s appearance through a priest/minister/whatever, but he doesn’t turn wine into his blood while still allowing it to retain it’s appearance?

 

[flyonthewall]

I mean absolutely no disrespect in asking this, so I hope my question doesn’t come off that way. I ask merely to satisfy curiosity. How does water represent the blood of Christ as well as red wine does, especially in light of the fact that he used wine at the Last Supper and not water?

Not at all…Water represents the blood of Christ just as red wine does. The Lord said to “do this in REMEMBERANCE of me”.
We believe the Lord had this to say about it too:

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

The important thing is the REMEMBERANCE of Him.

 

[mississippiwild]

Not at all…Water represents the blood of Christ just as red wine does. The Lord said to “do this in REMEMBERANCE of me”.
We believe the Lord had this to say about it too:

The important thing is the REMEMBERANCE of Him.

Hello, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs, but I stand behind the faith of the early Christians who stood under Paul and John and the others who had hands laid on them to recieve the Apostolic Authority to teach and act in Jesus’s name over any church teacher that had their teaching come down from five centuries or less any day. And , how could it represent Jesus instead of actually be him if eating or drinking the elements would bring condemnation on the recipient? This is the only point that fundamentalists are inconsistent. They believe every word in the bible is to be taken literally except John 6. Makes very little sense to me.

 

[FaithJoy]

Not at all…Water represents the blood of Christ just as red wine does. The Lord said to “do this in REMEMBERANCE of me”.
We believe the Lord had this to say about it too:

The important thing is the REMEMBERANCE of Him.

Using that logic, why not use Pepsi and birthday cake? Is there a limit you think Jesus has?

 

[flyonthewall]

Hello, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs, but I stand behind the faith of the early Christians who stood under Paul and John and the others who had hands laid on them to recieve the Apostolic Authority to teach and act in Jesus’s name over any church teacher that had their teaching come down from five centuries or less any day. And , how could it represent Jesus instead of actually be him if eating or drinking the elements would bring condemnation on the recipient? This is the only point that fundamentalists are inconsistent. They believe every word in the bible is to be taken literally except John 6. Makes very little sense to me.

No offence taken. I understand the reasons of your belief.
The condemnation isn’t in partaking of the elements, but doing so unworthily. Being unworthy has nothing to do with what is partaken of.
I cannot speak towards the actions of funamentalists, as I am not one, and I believe the bible uses metaphoric language extensively.

 

[flyonthewall]

Using that logic, why not use Pepsi and birthday cake? Is there a limit you think Jesus has?

We use bread and water if at all possible. Your own frame of mind is what is important when you partake of the emblems, it is best to eliminate distractions, and Pepsi and birthday cake would be a big distraction.
Me, personally, I think there would be very little limitations on what could be used, if any. The important thing is that the emblems are blessed by one in authority, and they are taken with an eye focused on the Savior…to be done in REMEMBERANCE of Him.

(I do hope that it never appears anywhere that we use Pepsi and birthday cake, as I didn’t say that)

 

[CMatt25]

So you believe that Jesus turns water into wine while still retaining it’s appearance through a priest/minister/whatever, but he doesn’t turn wine into his blood while still allowing it to retain it’s appearance?

I believe it can be easy to understand different beliefs. Flyonthewall says “I understand the reasons of your belief”. What I don’t understand is why is it so difficult for some Catholics to charitably understand other beliefs.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This one has always seemed obvious to me, but it seems our separated brethren obfuscate, evade, or flat-out say we Catholics just don’t understand what Jesus was saying. So let’s look at the evidence.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:32-69[/BIBLEDRB]

Seems like if those that understood Jesus to be saying eat my flesh and didn’t like it walked away, why didn’t He say wait guys come back I am using a metaphor. Every time he is questioned he reiterates the same point. Eat My flesh. Drink My blood.

Discuss…

Let me ask you. Do you think v. 35 should be taken literally?

Jn.6
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.