The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Radical]

My understanding is that the following verses occur prior bread of life discourse…

hey Panevino…I think I’ve got about 4 posts of yours to address on this thread…though IIRC some of my responses to others would have addressed some of your comments…hopefully i’ll be able to address all of your comments tonight…tomorrow morn at latest. cheers

 

[DavidY]

Jesus taught His Apostles but the ears and eyes of those outside could not hear or understand. Jesus Himself said. I am not surprised that those outside the Church cannot hear or understand what Jesus taught. They reapeat the Words but they cannot know what the Word means.

This is going to be long, but this type of comment just sets me off a bit, forgive me for being long winded brother or sister.

The problem is, there is nothing to accept or reject. It’s not even a logically coherent notion. It’s like saying, “Do you accept that the thares fly blue on the moonlight?” If not, you must be outside the Church

Once you examine it, it really becomes odd and, no offense, almost idolatrous. What if is NOT Christ’s body up there, would the RCC be guilty of idolatry for bowing to bread and wine? If it is, how can it be known to be so other than (literally) blind faith?

See, as a Christian I’m all about faith. But I like C.S. Lewis’ definition, with regard to trusting in things that we know to be true even amidst doubt.

And if someone is going to tell me that a priest has the power to call down Jesus’ **singular body **and blood under the species of bread and wine **all over the world **every day, or call us up (however you want to look at it) because Jesus put forth a hard teaching that may only to show that:

John 6
" 65 “**This is why **I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

…then I get a little worried.

And when the entire gospel message is based on trusting our sensory perceptions and logic about Jesus (that He is Lord, that He is risen), and then a Church tells me to throw these out the window and ‘just have faith,’ then I get a little worried again.

I don’t think that’s evidence of being outside of the ‘church,’ but very much inside of it. We are all one body, let’s stop making fine, exclusionary distinctions based on absurdities.

…

 

[DavidY]

Parenthetically, the word of ‘church’ as I’m sure you all know is ‘ecclesia,’ which means groups of believers in Jesus, not a special group of people under a particular apostle in a certain kind of building with a certain architecture, saying certain words in a certain order and wearing certain priestly vestments.

That’s not the only church, unless Paul’s churches were not true churches.

 

[DavidY]

I’ll make it easier for you. Please provide one single historical writing from orthodox Jews teaching they only ate a symbolic lamb at the Passover? Likewise, the countless writings from the early church teaching the Real Presence is a usurpation from Christ teaching?

The lamb symbolized the Passover, an event. The bread and wine symbolize Jesus’ sacrifice, an event.

Please provide one shred of logical evidence that to do something ‘in remembrance of me’ is to do it with ‘me’ in the room!

The thing with early writings is that if one is thinking of the Supper symbolically, it sounds pretty much like thinking of it literally. But I’ll take the challenge. How about a few from our third Pope, Clement?

Paedegogus

" The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes— the Lord who is Spirit and Word."

Or

“But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood.”

OR

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.”

newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

 

[Windfish]

theholyeucharist.com/

^Good video on the subject.

Typology, OT Judaism, NT, patristics, and miraculous evidence (i.e., Eucharistic miracles) all point to the Real Presence. Not a symbol.

 

[Nicea325]

The lamb symbolized the Passover, an event. The bread and wine symbolize Jesus’ sacrifice, an event.

That is not what I asked. I asked you if the Jews only ate a symbolic lamb? Or did they actually and physically eat an actual tangible lamb? No where does Jesus say; This represents or symbolizes my body. He said: This IS my body. He did not say: This ONLY represents or this IS ONLY a symbol of my body.

Please provide one shred of logical evidence that to do something ‘in remembrance of me’ is to do it with ‘me’ in the room!

Aahhhh…God is omnipresent,so why how can you logically confine Him? And who was he speaking to? The 12,not the multitudes.

The thing with early writings is that if one is thinking of the Supper symbolically, it sounds pretty much like thinking of it literally. But I’ll take the challenge. How about a few from our third Pope, Clement?

Paedegogus

" The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes— the Lord who is Spirit and Word."

Or

“But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood.”

OR

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.”

So in other words, Clement rejected the Real Presence? Care to provide other writings from him rejecting the Real Presence?

 

[DavidY]

I am not a Catholic so may be very wrong on this point. I don’t think Catholics see the Eucharist as a means of receiving merit; it is a means of receiving grace. Not a work performed but a channel by which God’s graces may be received by faith. Correct me if I am wrong.

Hi John,

You make a good point, but I think you may be confused, or I am. Either is possible.

I was to understand that the Eucharist provides forgiveness of venial sin each time one participates, reducing time in ‘purgatory.’

Also, the RCC preaches ‘infused righteousness,’ not imputed righteousness. Thus, I can infuse more righteousness into my soul by certain acts, making myself more righteous.

This is all humbly under the grace of God, according to RC theology, but personally the minute I add something to trusting in Christ’s righteousness in removing my sin I get worried, frankly

 

[DavidY]

That is not what I asked. I asked you if the Jews only ate a symbolic lamb? Or did the actually and physically eat an actual tangible lamb?

It’s simply a false parallel you’re trying to create. A lamb died and we ate it, and Jesus died, so we must eat Him??? Three points to ponder

1. The Passover was instituted to remember an event with a sacrifice. Jesus, likewise instituted a new Passover to commemorate another event.
2. When confronted with the Levitical laws about not ingesting blood, suddenly we don’t want to play Passover/OT anymore.
3. The lamb wasn’t the Passover, nor was it the same lamb as under Moses. So, to answer your false dilemna…both. It was a symbolic lamb that they literally ate.

Aahhhh…God is omnipresent,so why how can you logically confine Him? And who was he speaking to? The 12,not the multitudes.

God is…Jesus’ body is not. Check out the Council of Chalcedon.

And it is not I who logically ‘confines’ Him.

So in other words, Clement rejected the Real Presence? Care to provide other writings from him rejecting the Real Presence?

Not really, sorry. Perhaps when you respond to these. I’ve posted three so far.

Right now it seems that either papal infallibility is false or the real presence is…

 

[Windfish]

It’s simply a false parallel you’re trying to create. A lamb died and we ate it, and Jesus died, so we must eat Him??? Three points to ponder

1. The Passover was instituted to remember an event with a sacrifice. Jesus, likewise instituted a new Passover to commemorate another event.
2. When confronted with the Levitical laws about not ingesting blood, suddenly we don’t want to play Passover/OT anymore.
3. The lamb wasn’t the Passover, nor was it the same lamb as under Moses. So, to answer your false dilemna…both. It was a symbolic lamb that they literally ate.

You are missing the point. If the Hebrews did not eat the lamb, the angel of death would take their first-born son. In the same way, if we don’t really eat the Lamb of God in the Eucharist, then, as our Lord said, we have no life in us. That is the point behind Nicea325’s challenge. The Hebrews ate a real lamb. We eat the real Lamb of God.

 

[gmcbroom]

Was Clement the only Pope to say that though?

As for the disciples that left Jesus at the Pass Over meal and him letting them go that’s understandable. They didn’t want to break the Levitical law imposed on them. They still followed the Law instead of the God standing before them.

 

[DavidY]

Hmmm…Roman Catholic Christians?

But, upon reflection, I think you are right. Clement will simply be excused by claiming that he was not speaking ‘ex cathedra’ at that moment.

 

[Windfish]

Not really, sorry. Perhaps when you respond to these. I’ve posted three so far.

Can you please clarify if you are citing St. Clement of Rome writing in 80 A.D.? Or St. Clement of Alexandria?

 

[DavidY]

You are missing the point. If the Hebrews did not eat the lamb, the angel of death would take their first-born son. In the same way, if we don’t really eat the Lamb of God in the Eucharist, then, as our Lord said, we have no life in us. That is the point behind Nicea325’s challenge. The Hebrews ate a real lamb. We eat the real Lamb of God.

I responded to John 6 earlier, but let’s agree on that for the moment.

So then how does one ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ and do the eucharist ‘in memory of’ a lamb that is literally present???

 

[DavidY]

Right, but we are discussing RC Christianity.

Not sure why that’s relevant, many christians reject papal infallibility, and thus the dilemma wouldn’t matter…

 

[DavidY]

Can you please clarify if you are citing St. Clement of Rome writing in 80 A.D.? Or St. Clement of Alexandria?

Ah, good point. This was Clement of Alexandria. So forget the whole ‘papal infallibility vs real presence’ idea.

That was poorly constructed from the get-go…

This still does point to early Christian writings not affirming a real presence.

 

[Windfish]

I responded to John 6 earlier, but let’s agree on that for the moment.

So then how does one ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ and do the eucharist ‘in memory of’ a lamb that is literally present???

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the command to “do this in memory of me” is somehow in conflict with the Real Presence? This is quite a hackneyed objection. There is no conflict.

 

[Windfish]

Ah, good point. This was Clement of Alexandria. So forget the whole ‘papal infallibility vs real presence’ idea.

That was poorly constructed from the get-go…

This still does point to early Christian writings not affirming a real presence.

Even if you are citing St. Clement of Alexandria correctly (and I do not think that you are - otherwise, the Catholic Church most certainly would not have canonized someone who denied the Real Presence), the vast majority of patristic evidence shows belief in the Real Presence. I am going to research your citation a bit more, though. As I said, something is definitely fishy.

 

[DavidY]

Even if you are citing St. Clement of Alexandria correctly (and I do not think that you are - otherwise, the Catholic Church most certainly would not have canonized someone who denied the Real Presence), the vast majority of patristic evidence shows belief in the Real Presence. I am going to research your citation a bit more, though. As I said, something is definitely fishy.

I posted the link above. Not trying to be intentionally misleading (it is a Catholic site), but it is possible that I misunderstood some nuance of context…?

 

[DavidY]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the command to “do this in memory of me” is somehow in conflict with the Real Presence? This is quite a hackneyed objection. There is no conflict.

Do I need to remember you if you’re standing here?

 

[Windfish]

I posted the link above. Not trying to be intentionally misleading (it is a Catholic site), but it is possible that I misunderstood some nuance of context…?

Yes, I think so. I can post links if you want, but the scholars (both Protestant and Catholic) I am reading right now show that St. Clement of Alexandria did uphold the Real Presence, but that does not exclude allegorical or symbolic interpretations as well. Like Origen, in fact, Clement believed in the Real Presence, but he also theologized that the (real) body and blood are also evocative/symbolic of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, just as your quotations showed. The problem lies in taking those quotations out of context as if that is all he wrote. He does write in many other places on his belief in the Real Presence, and I can cut and paste if you like, but Google is right there.

My alarm went off when I read your citation because 1) all of the early Christians believed in the Real Presence and 2) the CC would not canonize a person who denied the real presence! This is part of the reason Origen is not canonized. He believed in the Real Presence, but his beliefs on other issues were heretical.