The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

EA_Man:

Regarding the ECF’s use of the word “figure” or “symbol”, here is a discussion as to how those terms are to be understood:

Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian… Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord’s intention to have been to show that bread was ‘the figure (figura) of His body’ : he explains the words ‘This is My body’ as meaning ‘This is the figure (figura) of My body’; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord’s body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread ‘makes present (repraesentat) His very body’ [Adv Marc i,14].

“The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words ‘symbol’ [in Clement of Alexandria] and ‘figure’ (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated ‘makes present’ (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers.” [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)

FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN – "This is the FIGURE of My body"

After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words “symbol” and “figure” even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say

From www.bringyou.to/apologetics/

“‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.”

Why then does Tertullian make a distinction between FIGURE and VERITABLE unless he meant that there was a distinction that actually existed?

Also, Tertullian uses the word REPRESENTS and METAPHOR to convey a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one.

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

No he doesn’t. Re-read Augustine’s concluding statement. He doesn’t say that just as Easter resembles Resurrection Day so too do the Sacraments resemble Christ. You’ve completley misrepresented his conclusion.

Instead, Augustine says in the last sentence you quote that the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is similar to the sacrament of faith. Just as faith is faith so too is the Sacrament of Christ’s Blood the Blood of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body is Christ’s Body. This is a certain manner. Not an uncertain one.

Fiat

Augustine is arguing that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, NOT on earth - ‘In respect of the presence of the Majesty we have Christ always; in respect of the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, But Me ye will not always have. For the Church had Him in respect of the presence of the flesh, for a few days; now, by faith it holds, not with eyes beholds Him.’

Peace

 

[Fiat]

"‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."

Why then does Tertullian make a distinction between FIGURE and VERITABLE unless he meant that there was a distinction that actually existed?

Also, Tertullian uses the word REPRESENTS and METAPHOR to convey a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one.

The answer is there in the text itself.

He asserts our Lord’s intention to have been to show that bread was ‘the figure (figura) of His body’ : he explains the words ‘This is My body’ as meaning ‘This is the figure (figura) of My body’; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord’s body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread ‘makes present (repraesentat) His very body’ [Adv Marc i,14].

Moreover, there is a distinction that exists, but it’s not the distinction that you are suggesting. You suggest that the distinction is between reality and symbol.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Church Militant:

Please do!
Man, it sure is a drag when you misrepresent the ECF and get caught at it big a life eternal. This is the same stuff that we get all the time …allegations that the ECF say things that are simply not factual.

If you got this from one of your favorite anti-Catholic sources, I suggest that you get your money back or just plain stop listening to him and begin your own honest research into what we believe and how it lines up with the ECF.

If what you believe does not line up with the statements of the ECF, then perhaps you have been taught wrong.
Pax tecum,

After the “Please do!”, I take it you are no longer referring to me, right?

 

[sonseeker]

mercygate:

Son, *where *

is the verb “eimi” used? Mt 26:26 in my Greek NT (the standard [Protestant] ABS edition) reads “estin” – which in NO way means “signifying” or “amounting to.” (Though there was a Protestant translator – I’m forgetting his name: big time biblical scholar – who translated it as “This means my body” – and forever lost credibility in the scholarly world because of it.). What source are you quoting?”estin” is the third person singular form of “eimi.” All verb forms have conjugations, or in Greek declensions, to distinguish between 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular and plural

[to] Be in English

Sing.
I am
You are
He/she/it is
**
Plural
We are
You are
They are

Eimi in Greek
**
Sing.
Eimi
Ei
Esti
**
Plural
Esmen
Este
Eisi

“To be” is a literal state of being, except when it is used in a metaphoric construction. It then means to “signify,” or “amount to.” Thus a metaphor signifies, or symbolizes, “This is That.”

You ask what source I am quoting, I am using my own greek knowledge; however, since you asked for a source, I will give you the best.

Here is what A.T. Robertson (a preeminent Greek scholar says about the Mt 26:26 passage), in his scholarly work entitled: Word Pictures in the New Testament:

Matthew 26:26

“And blessed and brake it (εὐλογησαςἐκλασεν eulogēsas eklasen]). Special “Grace” in the middle of the passover meal, “as they were eating,” for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in I Cor. 11:24. The correct text there has only to ὑπερὑμων huper humōn] without κλωμενον klōmenon]. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not “broken” (John 19:33) as John expressly states. This is my body (τουτοἐστιντοσωμαμου touto estin to sōma mou]). The bread as a symbol represents the body of Jesus offered for us, “a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death” (Bruce). But some have made it “run into fetish worship” (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.”

Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933

 

[sonseeker]

Fiat:

Two nouns joined by a form of the verb “to be” do not demand that the reader construe a metaphor. I can say “that one is my car,” and it truly is my car, not in any metaphorical way, but in a very concrete and certain way.Clearly your analogy is NOT a metaphor. Why? Because “one” refers to “car.” In Mt 26:26, Matthew records Christ’s words as metaphor. How? Because “this,” refers to a piece of bread, and “body,” refers to His body.

Let’s look at them side by side

Your analogy:
“That one [car] is my car.” (a statement of fact)

Matthew’s metaphor:
“This [piece of bread] is my body.” (a statement of symbol)

Your analogy designates one “thing.” Matthew’s metaphor symbolizes one “thing,” for another “thing.”

Fiat:

Why would Jesus command us to do something without instituting the means through which it may be accomplished?Where does Jesus give the explanation and words used to consecrate the bread, as the priest in your system does? Nowhere. The idea of consecration and transubstantiation were conjured later.

Fiat:

And how do you abide by this prescription? Do you avoid red meat, stay away from blood transfusions, etc? My Jesus tells me that I am to drink His blood for everlasting life. I choose to take Him at His word.

This is an attempt at a straw man. The prohibition does not include meat, but meat with its blood; it says nothing about transfusions; the prohibition is you will not imbibe blood, which is precisely what you claim you do in the eucharist.

God, clearly forbids imbibing blood: Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26ff; 17:10-16; 19:26; Dt 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:34; and in the N.T., after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God, through the apostles, restates that prohibition in Acts 15:20, 29.

In Mk 3:24, 25, Jesus says that a kingdom/house divided against itself cannot stand; in Jn 6:38 (and many other places), Jesus says that He is here not to do His will, but the will of the Father.

Do you not understand that for Jesus to institute the imbibing of blood, He would be violating, and countermanding the will of God, that men should not imbibe blood?

Do you not understand that for the Son to instruct us to violate the Father’s will concerning the prohibition placed upon the imbibing of blood, would divide the Son from the Father, thereby causing a division in God’s kingdom/house, and causing it to fall?

Do you not understand that God, through the apostles, restates the prohibition against imbibing blood in Acts 15?

How do you reconcile those facts with your understanding of a literal drinking of blood on your part?

It cannot be that Christ instituted that. He would be causing you to sin grievously and frequently—as often as you partook.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Those are weak, I will even use your own quotes and point out things within them. (Also read what Fiat posted about figures and symbols above…)

Part II

Augustine defines Presence in a way not consistent with Transubstantiation.

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)

Augustine likens the sacraments to the Easter celebration in that although the Day resembles the Day of Resurrection, it is not in fact that singular day in history. Likewise, the sacraments resemble or represent Christ “in a certain manner”.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

The answer is there in the text itself.

Moreover, there is a distinction that exists, but it’s not the distinction that you are suggesting. You suggest that the distinction is between reality and symbol.

The distinction is between reality and symbol as that is the intent of Tertullian (Against Marcion). He wrote those books to counter the Gnostic Heresy. Tertullian’s entire point is that there cannot be the symbol of Christ’s Body represented sacramentally if in fact He (Jesus) did not have a real body.

You’re superimposing the dogma of the Eucharist onto the text.

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Yes. Really.

“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness.”
(The Instructor, 2:2)

Yes. Really.

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the **figure **of wine to describe His blood.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)

Yup.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)

Yes, in Part II

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Yes. Really.

“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness.”
(The Instructor, 2:2)

Yes. Really.

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the **figure **of wine to describe His blood.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)

Yup.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)

 

[E.E.N.S]

And regardless what you may think the early Church Fathers are saying (though they ARE for the Real Presence in the Eucharist), Christ gave Peter the authority to loose and bind, and that has been handed down through apostolic succession straight to our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI…Christ established a Church and died for her, she [the Church] has the Truth of Christ. The Church teaches the Real Presence through Transubstantiation, so in conclusion, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est!”

 

[Fiat]

sonseeker:

Clearly your analogy is NOT a metaphor. Why? Because “one” refers to “car.” In Mt 26:26, Matthew records Christ’s words as metaphor. How? Because “this,” refers to a piece of bread, and “body,” refers to His body.

Let’s look at them side by side

Your analogy:
“That one [car] is my car.” (a statement of fact)

Matthew’s metaphor:
“This [piece of bread] is my body.” (a statement of symbol)

Your analogy designates one “thing.” Matthew’s metaphor symbolizes one “thing,” for another “thing.”
.

Dear Sonseeker:

Your definition of metaphor still falls apart. If you insist that two nouns joined by a form of the verb “to be” necessitates a metaphor, then how about this example:

This 12-year-old boy is my child. Here we have “one thing” (12 year old boy) being quite literally “another thing” (my child). Child is not symbolized by 12 year old boy. In this case, the 12 year old boy IS ACTUALLY my child.

I’m sorry but you may have to work a little harder on your argument here.

God, clearly forbids imbibing blood: Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26ff; 17:10-16; 19:26; Dt 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:34; and in the N.T., after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God, through the apostles, restates that prohibition in Acts 15:20, 29.

Yet at the same time, Christ commands us to drink His Blood. It’s quite clearly spelled out in the 6th chapter of John. Unlike the blood of animals, Jesus knows that His blood is not ritually unclean, rather it is the blood which cleanses! Likewise, the apostles understood that we should partake of Christ’s blood often. (1 Cor. 11:25).

If you think you can eat red meat without the presence of blood, then I suggest you are a little like Shylock looking for your pound of flesh.

Peace,
Fiat

 

[mercygate]

1) The Catholic Church has made proclamations about the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in this Newtonian world.

1. You yourself referred to Eucharistic miracle blood types - a measurable attribute of the Newtonian world.

Therefore I would suggest that we either abandon Newtonian world measurements altogether or employ them consistently. I favor the latter rather than the former approach.

Got created this Newtonian world but is not bound by it. He is not bound by matter, time, or space. His relationship to us who dwell in matter, time, and space is a function of his love.

…On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father… (The Apostles Creed)

…For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father…(The Nicene Creed)

“is seated” is present indicative tense. When we say the creeds we are saying that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. We do not say that He is here, there, and everywhere. Additionally, what are we to make of Jesus’ words regarding the Holy Spirit: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” - John 16:7

Jesus had to go away in order that He could send us the Holy Spirit. If He were physically with us every day through the Eucharist, why would have He sent the Holy Spirit whom He claimed that He could not send us UNLESS He went away?

Acts 1:11 - “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (i.e. visibly / physically)

The angels speaking to the disciples at the Ascension certainly gave the impression that the resurrected body of Jesus would return to the Newtonian world and in a way detectable to the senses. It seems to me that the practical effect of Transubstantiation is that it refutes the testimony of the two angels in Acts 1:11 in that Jesus comes and goes all of the time but is never seen.

In order to make Transubstantiation fit we must read into a scripture the assumption that the angels were only speaking of the Second Coming and were leaving unspoken the promise that Jesus would physically return unseen billions and billions of times until then.

Peace

Sigh. EA, does God really have body parts – a “right hand?” Does God come and go as men come and go? He may appear to do so (as in Eden) but is his *limited *to doing so? Is he circumscribed, even by himself?

EA – not being difficult here, but are perichoresis and divine circumincession terms that have meaning for you? They refer to the fact that the persons of the Holy Trinity are never absent from one another. Where the Father is, there is the Son, where the Son is, there is the Holy Spirit. Coming and going are metaphors for God’s action *towards us. *They do not describe the peregrinations of God himself because everything subsists in him. Nothing is ever not in him.

Christ’s ascension and second coming certainly were and will be for us what Scripture says, but surely – surely – what we know of Christ’s Resurrection Body leads us to understand that the language of “place” is an accommodation to human nature, not to the divine nature.

Jesus physically returned unseen when he surprised the disciples by entering the locked room, then appearing in the midst of them with the words, “Peace be with you.” He was physically with the disciples on the road to Emmaus – and just as abruptly “unseen.” As for being present to us in many places, Jesus did say: “I am with you always.” One way he is ‘with us’ is in the Blessed Sacrament, the sign of union with him through his Body, the Church. Why should it be more odd that Jesus be present in the Blessed Sacrament than that he be present in our hearts?

 

[mercygate]

1) The Catholic Church has made proclamations about the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in this Newtonian world.

1. You yourself referred to Eucharistic miracle blood types - a measurable attribute of the Newtonian world.

Therefore I would suggest that we either abandon Newtonian world measurements altogether or employ them consistently. I favor the latter rather than the former approach.

Got created this Newtonian world but is not bound by it. He is not bound by matter, time, or space. His relationship to us who dwell in matter, time, and space is a function of his love.

…On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father… (The Apostles Creed)

…For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father…(The Nicene Creed)

“is seated” is present indicative tense. When we say the creeds we are saying that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. We do not say that He is here, there, and everywhere. Additionally, what are we to make of Jesus’ words regarding the Holy Spirit: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” - John 16:7

Jesus had to go away in order that He could send us the Holy Spirit. If He were physically with us every day through the Eucharist, why would have He sent the Holy Spirit whom He claimed that He could not send us UNLESS He went away?

Acts 1:11 - “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (i.e. visibly / physically)

The angels speaking to the disciples at the Ascension certainly gave the impression that the resurrected body of Jesus would return to the Newtonian world and in a way detectable to the senses. It seems to me that the practical effect of Transubstantiation is that it refutes the testimony of the two angels in Acts 1:11 in that Jesus comes and goes all of the time but is never seen.

In order to make Transubstantiation fit we must read into a scripture the assumption that the angels were only speaking of the Second Coming and were leaving unspoken the promise that Jesus would physically return unseen billions and billions of times until then.

Peace

Does God really have body parts – a “right hand?” Does God come and go as men come and go? He may appear to do so (as in Eden) but is he *limited *to doing so? Is he circumscribed by his own creation or even by himself?

EA – not being difficult here, but are perichoresis and divine circumincession terms that have crossed your prow? They refer to the fact that the persons of the Holy Trinity are never absent from one another. Where the Father is, there is the Son, where the Son is, there is the Holy Spirit. Coming and going are metaphors for God’s action *towards us. *They do not describe the peregrinations of God himself because everything subsists in him. Nothing is ever not in him. Everything is always present to him.

Christ’s ascension and second coming certainly were and will be for us what Scripture says, but surely – surely – what we know of Christ’s Resurrection Body leads us to understand that the language of “place” is an accommodation to human nature, not to the divine nature.

Jesus physically returned unseen when he surprised the disciples by entering the locked room, then appearing in the midst of them with the words, “Peace be with you.” He was physically with the disciples on the road to Emmaus – and just as abruptly “unseen.” As for being present to us in many places, Jesus did say: “I am with you always.” One way he is ‘with us’ is in the Blessed Sacrament, the sign of union with him through his Body, the Church. Why should it be more odd that Jesus be present in the Blessed Sacrament than that he be present in our hearts?

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

The distinction is between reality and symbol as that is the intent of Tertullian (Against Marcion). He wrote those books to counter the Gnostic Heresy. Tertullian’s entire point is that there cannot be the symbol of Christ’s Body represented sacramentally if in fact He (Jesus) did not have a real body.

The evidence for belief in “The Real Presence” amongst the Church Fathers is overwhelming. If you can not accept the words of Christ Himself, it is not going to benefit you much by studying the writings of one Church Father, whom you interpret to support your 16th century doctrine of symbolism.

 

[sonseeker]

Fiat:

Dear Sonseeker:

Your definition of metaphor still falls apart. If you insist that two nouns joined by a form of the verb “to be” necessitates a metaphor, then how about this example:

This 12-year-old boy is my child. Here we have “one thing” (12 year old) being quite literally “another thing” (my son). Child is not symbolized by 12 year old boy. In this case, the 12 year old boy IS ACTUALLY my child.

I’m sorry but you may have to work a little harder on your argument here.

Yet at the same time, Christ commands us to drink His Blood. It’s quite clearly spelled out in the 6th chapter of John. Probably because Jesus knows that His blood is not ritually unclean, rather it is the blood which cleanses!

Are you serious? You have the same analogy as before. In your analogy, “This 12-year-old boy is my child,” The 12-year-old boy, and your child ARE the same thing.

You need to slow down and think about it. As far as the eucharist is concerned, you can do as you please.

In fact, as far as any of it is concerned, you can do as you please.

 

[sonseeker]

mercygate:

Coming and going are metaphors for God’s action towards us.

FYI. The comings and goings of God are anthropomorphisms, not metaphors.

 

[mercygate]

sonseeker:

FYI. The comings and goings of God are anthropomorphisms, not metaphors.

Of course they are. I stand corrected. Thanks. :tiphat:

 

[Fiat]

sonseeker:

Are you serious? You have the same analogy as before. In your analogy, “This 12-year-old boy is my child,” The 12-year-old boy, and your child ARE the same thing.

You need to slow down and think about it. As far as the eucharist is concerned, you can do as you please.

In fact, as far as any of it is concerned, you can do as you please.

I’m sorry you’re losing patience, here, but I think the problem lies with your own definition.

Interestingly, you undoubtedly accept that God can look into an abyss and speak words of creation, “Let there be light,” and there is light. However, you somehow don’t think that God could or would lift up a piece of bread and say, “This is my body” without it being so, when this is precisely what He did.

Peace,
Fiat

 

[sonseeker]

Fiat:

I’m sorry you’re losing patience, here, but I think the problem lies with your own definition.

The problem always lies with someone else. The problem is you won’t admit your own error. The 12-year-old boy, and your child are the same.

Your god contradicts himself, concerning the handling of blood.