The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedDawgMCM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dok, what’s wrong with ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship? They don’t defocus from Jesus; they focus on Jesus Christ. 👍
Nothing if they 1. glorify Jesus and 2. are done with meaning by those doing them (seems to many just 'go throught the motions).
 
Well look at the reaction when he was teaching it, was it accepted, was it understood, did many walk away? No, THey understood THAT teaching also, but accepted it.

Why did others not walk away from that one then, and walk away from his teaching of the Eucharist then, why did they not call him MAD for that one then? Unless as I explained they understood that teaching also. BUt they accepted that one, they did not walk away on that one.😃
If I understood your meaning, I don’t think you answered me.
 
Was she canonized a saint by the Catholic Church? If not - we don’t know whether she made it to heaven. We can hope and pray that she did.

As for our physical self being small - it is what we DO with our physicality, along with our spirituality that determines where we will spend eternity. If I were you - I would not underestimate the importance of the physical because God doesn’t (Matt. 25:31-46).
Did you google Annie?

If anyone’s in Heaven, Annie is.

I don’t underestimate the physical. It’s important to put it in it’s proper place. The old body will not be in Heaven. It must be totally remade.
 
One need not be Anglivan to give this a 👍

Jon
👍 Jeremy Taylor also wrote that if one does not believe that Holy Communion is the true Body and Blood of Christ then one is not a Christian . . .

Alex
 
👍 Jeremy Taylor also wrote that if one does not believe that Holy Communion is the true Body and Blood of Christ then one is not a Christian . . .

Alex
Hi Alex,
Luther said similar things. But I thought I would add this from the confessions:

From The Formula of Concord:
Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the ‘Word,’ I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood,” etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. 23] It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word, or regard it without the Word, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.
“Here we abide”, it says, “and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.” Those who will constitute themselves as His master. For me, as a Lutheran, that is as powerful a statement in defense of the real presence as one can find.

Jon
 
Hi Alex,
Luther said similar things. But I thought I would add this from the confessions:

From The Formula of Concord:

“Here we abide”, it says, “and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.” Those who will constitute themselves as His master. For me, as a Lutheran, that is as powerful a statement in defense of the real presence as one can find.

Jon
Hi, Jon…👍

Could you clarify this part, I am not sure what is meant by it:

[SIGN]"and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.[/SIGN]
 
I could give you a long answer, but I don’t have the time.😛

Easier answer:
The bread is brought to Mass, and is just good old bread until the priest consecrates it and Jesus is truly alive among us, right in our parish. Translation = the bread has become Jesus’ Body and the wine has become Jesus’ Blood, in a very literal sense.

Sadly, 40% of Catholics think it is merely symbolic (up until last fall, I was one of them).:eek:

“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph” - Our Lady of Fatima
http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/heart/maryHeart.jpg
 
Hi, Jon…👍

Could you clarify this part, I am not sure what is meant by it:

[SIGN]"and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.[/SIGN]
The reformers are speaking of those who would deny the real presence.

'Now, here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood,” etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. "

Jon
 
The OT rituals foreshaddowed the coming of Jesus. In and of themselves, they did nothing or God would not have done away with the Old Covenant replacing it with the New.
:confused::dts: Could you explain this one a little better for me. Because I am not understanding what you are saying.

If the O.T rituals forshaddowed the comming of Christ, and by the way I am spot on with you on that, would that not in itself do something?

But lets get back to the Eucharist, The O.T was the covenant of the Paschal Lamb with Moses in which God made Israel a nation, the brith of the Isralites as the chosen people of God. Thats a fact, its the truth and its history, I believe we have no argument on this.

Now in Exodus it says this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you, the pouring out of blood on the altar, which symbolized blood on the 12 tribes and people which represented the other party both made partakers of the same blood and brought into a kind of sacramental union. This was meant to be perfected through a complete revelation on the part of God.

But later the exile was a punishment because the Isralites had broken the Covenant, but they were restored to the Old Cov. so a New Covenant would include all nations.

Now the Lord was speaking through Jeremiah Jer. 31:33.

Now the Last Supper and Crucifixion took place during the passover, when Jesus mediated a New Covenant. Just like Moses did the O.T or O. C. Jesus did the N.T or N.C.

This is my blood, the blood of the Covenant.

Now in Luke he said this is my body, not this symbolizes my body, then taking wine, he said this is my blood shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:28.

Now his comming death on the following afternoon was set before them in a unbloody manner, On the cross he would die by the separation of his blood from his body.

He did not consecrate the bread and wine together, but apart, to show forth the manner of his death by the separation of body and blood,

In this act he showed us what he would be on the cross the next day. Priest and Victim.

In the O.T the victim was a goat, sheep, etc. APART from the Priest.

But here HE the PRIEST offered Himself, By doing that he fulfilled the words fo the prophet Malachi. Mal. 1:11

Do this in memory of me, whcih means Renew, Repeat this. Continue this to offer sacrafice for the sins of the world.

Now why bread and wine? Simple.

Bread is made from a multiplicity of grains and wheat, wine multiplicity of grapes, so the many who believe are ONE IN CHRIST.

Next no 2 substances in nature suffer more to become what they are then bread and wine,

Wheat has to pass through winter beneath the Calvary of a mill, and then subject to a PURGING FIRE before it can become bread.

Wine subjected to the Gethesemane of a wine press and have their life CRUSHED from them to become wine.

Get the picture, the suffering of Christ.

Third no 2 things ever traditionally mourished man then bread and wine.

In bringing these elements to the altar man is bringing himself. Here is the point that people are missing Listen to this part, it is SO important.

When BREAD and WINE are CONSUMED they are changed into WHAT, SIMPLE!! MANS BODY AND BLOOD!!!

BUt when Jesus took bread and wine he changed them into himself!!

Does that help you guys at all to understand?? Our Dear Lord after he changed the bread and wine into his Body he told his disciples to EAT and Drink. He was doing for the SOUL of Man what food and drink do for the body.

Unless the plants sacrfice THEMSELVES to being plucked up from the roots, they cannot NOURISH or COMMUNE with Man.

FIrst his death is mystically represented, then communion followed. The lower is transformed into the higher chemical into plants, plants into animals. palnts and animals into man, and man into Christ by Communion.

This is why the EUCHARIST is the CENTER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND LIFE.

Look at Budda, what Strength do they get from his life? Nothing, Only his writings, Even the writings of Christianity are not near as important as the LIFE of Christ.

Christ now living in Glory, now pours out on his followers the benefits of his Sacrifice.

All Jesus talked about in his life was his death and glory that would come. That is why he came. He gave to his Apostles something which on dying no one else could give, Himself.

Only divine wisdom could have conceived such a Memorial, Humans left to their own thinking would have never seen his REDEMPTION.

His death would have only been history, not the salvation of humanity. But what is so sad here, this is how so many here are missing the whole point of the Cross.

He didn’t want men to read about his death on the cross, or his Redemption, but actors IN IT!! Offering up their body and blood with his in the re-enactment of Calvary, saying to him, THis is my body and blood, dying to our lower natures to live to the Grace that is given to us. We want to be changed our wills etc into the will of Christ. That is why we are joined together with him.

Catholic’s you hear it every Sunday, RIght before communion, IN HIM, WITH HIM, and THROUGH HIM, in UNITY with the HOLY SPRIIT, ONE GOD forever and ever. Amen.
 
Just my brief .02 cents I’m tossing in. It is clear that the scriptural Eucharist means something more than mere symbolism - although surely its symbolism is rich, powerful, and transformative.

Without getting into doctrinal nuances, it can be easily observed that the Eucharist of John’s Chapter Six is both symbolic and realistic. The first part of the discourse emphasizes symbolically what it means to accept Jesus’s word as “food”. The second part emphasizes that the “food” is more than symbolic, but is also real food - food that is to be “gnawed” or “torn with the teeth” - food that no longer requires the quote marks. Not “food”, but food. The late Catholic scripture scholar Raymond E. Brown analyzed the two discourse sections and concluded that the second segment is an interpolation - but it is a Johannine interpolation, which truly manifests the author’s “real food” Eucharistic perspective.

The Pauline Eucharist is obviously about a sacramental participation in Jesus’s Paschal sacrifice. One participates by eating bread and drinking wine. It is an active participation in a real meal with real food, in which Christ is present to the extent that treating the Eucharist disrespectfully equates to injuring “the Body”.

There are of course extra-scriptural Eucharists such as the one found in the Didache, which. unlike the scriptural Eucharist, displays little emphasis on its Paschal nature. But what it says about Jesus’s salvific role still makes it an important contribution to understanding the early Church.

Although congregations may argue about the exact nature and processes of the Real Presence’s manifestation in the Eucharist, it is probable that very few Christians actually deny that Jesus is present in some special manner. Certainly that is the case with many non-Catholic posters to CAF. Even for many of those whose particular faith traditions mandate the symbolic approach, still they believe and feel that the Eucharist is more than an empty remembrance. To me, that seems to get it right - it seems that scipture itself makes this plain: the Eucharist is both symbol and reality.
 
Just my brief .02 cents I’m tossing in.
1/50 of a cent? what’s that about? 😉 I’ll give you my 2 cents (cdn) in return.
It is clear that the scriptural Eucharist means something more than mere symbolism - although surely its symbolism is rich, powerful, and transformative.
agreed, but it isn’t clear that the bread is more than a symbol (within an act that is more than symbolic)…same for the wine
Without getting into doctrinal nuances, it can be easily observed that the Eucharist of John’s Chapter Six is both symbolic and realistic. The first part of the discourse emphasizes symbolically what it means to accept Jesus’s word as “food”. The second part emphasizes that the “food” is more than symbolic, but is also real food - food that is to be “gnawed” or “torn with the teeth” - food that no longer requires the quote marks. Not “food”, but food.
the problem with this jump from “food” to food is that the only thing that is actually gnawed is the bread…Christ’s flesh is most certainly not torn apart by the participant’s teeth. As such, if the gnawing or tearing of a thing makes that thing food, then the food is the bread (and the bread alone).
The late Catholic scripture scholar Raymond E. Brown analyzed the two discourse sections and concluded that the second segment is an interpolation - but it is a Johannine interpolation, which truly manifests the author’s “real food” Eucharistic perspective.
I think Catholics (even the likes of Brown) are conditioned to see a realism in John 6 that doesn’t in fact exist
The Pauline Eucharist is obviously about a sacramental participation in Jesus’s Paschal sacrifice.
what words from Paul, in your opinion, make it a sacramental act?
One participates by eating bread and drinking wine. It is an active participation in a real meal with real food,…
You are right so far…at Corinth at that time, it was a full blown meal and the real food (that was chewed included bread and did not include human flesh)
… in which Christ is present to the extent that treating the Eucharist disrespectfully equates to injuring “the Body”.
here, IMHO, you jump to an unwarranted conclusion. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved.
Although congregations may argue about the exact nature and processes of the Real Presence’s manifestation in the Eucharist, it is probable that very few Christians actually deny that Jesus is present in some special manner.
yes, present amidst the congregation, but not in the elements
 
Quote:
One participates by eating bread and drinking wine. It is an active participation in a real meal with real food,…
You are right so far…at Corinth at that time, it was a full blown meal and the real food (that was chewed included bread and did not include human flesh)
Really? According to Radical,not Jesus:

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his** flesh to eat**?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you **eat the flesh **of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever **eats my flesh **and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever **eats my flesh **and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living

Radical your position is purely carnal. You are merely trying to bring God to human level.
I think Catholics (even the likes of Brown) are conditioned to see a realism in John 6 that doesn’t in fact exist
And you have been conditioned to see a symbol which does not even exist. Did the Jews eat a symbol of a lamb at the Passover meal? Kindly show us the historical evidence from the Jews consuming a symbolic Passover lamb?
 
agreed, but it isn’t clear that the bread is more than a symbol (within an act that is more than symbolic)…same for the wine

the problem with this jump from “food” to food is that the only thing that is actually gnawed is the bread…Christ’s flesh is most certainly not torn apart by the participant’s teeth. As such, if the gnawing or tearing of a thing makes that thing food, then the food is the bread (and the bread alone).

I think Catholics (even the likes of Brown) are conditioned to see a realism in John 6 that doesn’t in fact exist
I’m so glad you said this, Rad. It gives me a chance to furnish a lesson in the original Greek.

The usual, common word for human eating or dining is Phago(n). However, this was NOT the word used in John’s Gospel. He used the word for the way an animal eats, GNAWS and RIPS APART his food. that word is Trogo(n). As he did many times, Jesus was using hyperbole to drive his point accross.

It might also interest you that the reason John’s Gospel emphasizes things that the other synoptic Gospels don’t is because he was writing to 1st century heretics – the Gnostics. These are the very same group about whom Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
** (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 A.D. 110]).**

Ignatius was a contemporary of John and was also his student. If anybody had a grasp on the 1st century Church’s understanding of - and adherence to the Real Presence – it was Ignatius.
 
Impossible to argue against your claim which is why it will probably be ignored, sadly, but I could be wrong. A question I had to ask myself as a former non-Catholic: If Ignatius, a contemporary of John the apostle, believed that all Christians must confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, then he must have learned it from John the apostle, which is why I asked myself, then why don’t I? That of course is the same question I ask every non-Catholic here at this thread.
I’m so glad you said this, Rad. It gives me a chance to furnish a lesson in the original Greek.

The usual, common word for human eating or dining is Phago(n). However, this was NOT the word used in John’s Gospel. He used the word for the way an animal eats, GNAWS and RIPS APART his food. that word is Trogo(n). As he did many times, Jesus was using hyperbole
to drive his point accross.

It might also interest you that the reason John’s Gospel emphasizes things that the other synoptic Gospels don’t is because he was writing to 1st century heretics – the Gnostics. These are the very same group about whom Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”** (Letter to the Smyrnaeans** 6:2-7:1 A.D. 110]).

Ignatius was a contemporary of John and was also his student. If anybody had a grasp on the 1st century Church’s understanding of - and adherence to the Real Presence – it was Ignatius.
 
Impossible to argue against your claim which is why it will probably be ignored, sadly, but I could be wrong. A question I had to ask myself as a former non-Catholic: If Ignatius, a contemporary of John the apostle, believed that all Christians must confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, then he must have learned it from John the apostle, which is why I asked myself, then why don’t I? That of course is the same question I ask every non-Catholic here at this thread.
What is even more damaging against a symbolic Eucharist is the burden of proof showing the Jews merely ate a symbolic lamb at the Passover? I thought Jesus is the Lamb of God? The passover meal a foreshadowing of the Mass?
 
Impossible to argue against your claim which is why it will probably be ignored, sadly, but I could be wrong. A question I had to ask myself as a former non-Catholic: If Ignatius, a contemporary of John the apostle, believed that all Christians must confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, then he must have learned it from John the apostle, which is why I asked myself, then why don’t I? That of course is the same question I ask every non-Catholic here at this thread.
I have heard the argument from many Protestants, "I don’t believe in the Early Church Fathers. Their teachings were flawed. They were wrong."

Denial is the last haven of the truly desperate . . .
 
What is even more damaging against a symbolic Eucharist is the burden of proof showing the Jews merely ate a symbolic lamb at the Passover? I thought Jesus is the Lamb of God? The passover meal a foreshadowing of the Mass?
He IS the Lamb of God - unless you’re debating a Catholic . . .:rolleyes:
 
I have heard the argument from many Protestants, "I don’t believe in the Early Church Fathers. Their teachings were flawed. They were wrong."

Denial is the last haven of the truly desperate . . .
Hhmm? If the teachings of the ECF were flawed and equally important,they lived much closer to the Apostolic Age. However, then I am curious to know how **much more flawed **are their relatively new beliefs,traditions,theology,etc which are nearly 2,000 years separated from Jesus? How do they answer that Chinese riddle?
 
The usual, common word for human eating or dining is Phago(n). However, this was NOT the word used in John’s Gospel. He used the word for the way an animal eats, GNAWS and RIPS APART his food. that word is Trogo(n). As he did many times, Jesus was using hyperbole to drive his point accross. and that is the thing…hyberboles aren’t to be understood literally…
**It might **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top