What arguments are used for symbolic communion?

[Hatikvah]

There are many traditions that hold to a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics have transubstantiation, for example, and then many other traditions have somewhat more vaguely-defined conceptions (like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Methodism, namely). We see that many writers of the early Church referenced or described the real presence in some way, and this has been continued.

However, while we often find materials (especially articles from Catholic sites such as this one) that make cases for the real presence, what arguments are used by those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist? These appear to be less common, and the real presence seems to be dismissed entirely or simply argued away as “symbolic.” In fact, GotQuestions’ artice on transubstantiation says this:

Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant… Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth.

How is the real presence dismissed so easily? Are there, or have there been, any real arguments used against it?

Comment and discuss, I’m interested in your responses.

 

[jane_doe]

Non-Catholics will not give you a Roman Catholic style argument. For example, the article you linked entirely consists on non-scriptural references, which sola scriptura faiths immediately reject as non-authoritative. Instead the GotQuestions answer cites scripture verses and their interpretation of it.

 

[LutheranScholar]

There are many traditions that hold to a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics have transubstantiation, for example, and then many other traditions have somewhat more vaguely-defined conceptions (like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Methodism, namely). We see that many writers of the early Church referenced or described the real presence in some way, and this has been continued.

However, while we often find materials (especially articles from Catholic sites such as this one) that make cases for the real presence, what arguments are used by those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist? These appear to be less common, and the real presence seems to be dismissed entirely or simply argued away as “symbolic.” In fact, GotQuestions’ artice on transubstantiation says this:

How is the real presence dismissed so easily? Are there, or have there been, any real arguments used against it?

Comment and discuss, I’m interested in your responses.

I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I was given the argument that the Lord’s Supper was instituted as a memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Let’s just say that I took the Lord’s Supper before I was baptized and that was seen as an expected thing to do in the context of that particular church. I did ask about the relevant passages in John and the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. I was told that Jesus spoke in parables and with symbolism all the time. Jesus is the Lamb of God… Do I expect Him to be a literal baby sheep? Jesus is the Vine… do I pick grapes off of Him? An interesting Sunday School class, to say the least. Here is a link to a site that explains the Baptist viewpoint in a little more detail: baptistdistinctives.org/resources/articles/two-ordinances-baptism-and-the-lords-supper/

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’m no expert but just some of what I gather…

Do this in remembrance of me.

Along with a view that for instance, transubstantiation contradicts with Augustinian theology. That the physical body of Christ must only be in one particular place in heaven, drawn from Augustine’s statement: For the body of the Lord in which He rose can be contained in one place. That Christ’s physical body is not omnipresent because his human nature is finite and his body ascended into heaven, so it can not be in multiple places simultaneously.

This and much more detail I found here.

academia.edu/12552658/Zwingli_on_the_Symbolic_Eucharist

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Just as LS has pointed out, in the fundamentalist realm you are of the belief that because Jesus spoke symbolically so often, he must be speaking symbolically about communion as well. He refers to Himself as a gate or a vine, etc… so this pattern of figurative language leads you to think that he cant possibly be speaking literally about material matters.

I was floored the first time i started reading the Church Fathers discussing the real presence of the Eucharist. Clearly my interpretation of the scriptures is very fallible.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz.

 

[alwayswill]

There are many traditions that hold to a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics have transubstantiation, for example, and then many other traditions have somewhat more vaguely-defined conceptions (like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Methodism, namely). We see that many writers of the early Church referenced or described the real presence in some way, and this has been continued.

However, while we often find materials (especially articles from Catholic sites such as this one) that make cases for the real presence, what arguments are used by those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist? These appear to be less common, and the real presence seems to be dismissed entirely or simply argued away as “symbolic.” In fact, GotQuestions’ artice on transubstantiation says this:

How is the real presence dismissed so easily? Are there, or have there been, any real arguments used against it?

Comment and discuss, I’m interested in your responses.

If it was not symbolic;
was propitiation made at the Last Supper?

 

[alwayswill]

Comment and discuss, I’m interested in your responses.

What gives eternal life in John 6?

How does one work for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in Jesus (verses 27, 29).

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [believing] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (verse 35).

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (verse 40).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life” (verse 47).

“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (verse 54).

“Whoever believes has eternal life” (verse 47).

verses 47 and 54 both say what gives eternal life:
Is it believing,or eating flesh , or both?

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

 

[SJacob7]

Here’s a couple I have heard.

In the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, after Jesus gives thanks and gives the apostles the cup, He states that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine until in the Kingdom of Heaven. So after he consecrated it he still referenced it as fruit of the vine, not His blood.

Another one is that Jesus didn’t sin. By literally telling people to drink His blood, he would be telling them to do something against the Law of Moses. He would have sinned by saying this literally. Also, in Acts 15:19-20 James states this:

*It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. *

Each of the 4 things listed that they were to avoid were separate things. If they were to teach that we are to literally drink His blood, how would they understand not to drink blood?

Anyway, these are two that I heard and are passing along.

 

[benjohnson]

Luther and Zwingli had a rather interesting debate about the topic, and Zwingli (from a debate standpoint) won the argument:

Zwingli argued that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. When Luther said that God was everywhere, Zwingli then countered with the idea that Christ can’t be everywhere and yet also specifically in the bread and wine.

After Zwingli logically trounced Luther (some of Luther’s friends were siding with Zwingli) - Luther had to fall back on Christ’s promise: “This is my body.”

Luther wrote God’s word on the table and simply deferred to them for the remaining part of the argument.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m no expert but just some of what I gather…

Do this in remembrance of me.

Along with a view that for instance, transubstantiation contradicts with Augustinian theology. That the physical body of Christ must only be in one particular place in heaven, drawn from Augustine’s statement: For the body of the Lord in which He rose can be contained in one place. That Christ’s physical body is not omnipresent because his human nature is finite and his body ascended into heaven, so it can not be in multiple places simultaneously.

This and much more detail I found here.

academia.edu/12552658/Zwingli_on_the_Symbolic_Eucharist

Sy,

Perhaps you could source Augustine’s original writing for the quote above. I do not find it in the link provided. The Catholic priest Zwingli had no authority to change doctrine. None. Me thinks St. Augustine would have called him a “profane critic” … Augustine’s words of someone who in part, has no authority and is outside of the one, apostolic faith - and one Church. Keep in mind that he was a Catholic Bishop, and believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. The metaphysical explanation of Transubstantiation would be articulated in future centuries.

Co-incidentally, I just read the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Letters of Augustine, Chapter 44.

In paragraph 10 he writes, referring to the Last Supper as a … Sacrament:

For I granted that no example could be produced from the New Testament of a righteous man putting any one to death; but I insisted that by the example of our Lord Himself, it could be proved that the wicked had been tolerated by the innocent. For His own betrayer, who had already received the price of His blood, He suffered to remain undistinguished from the innocent who were with Him, even up to that last kiss of peace. He did not conceal from the disciples the fact that in the midst of them was one capable of such a crime; and, nevertheless, He administered to them all alike, without excluding the traitor, the first sacrament of His body and blood.

Later in the same paragraph:

For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition.

This is ALL very Catholic. Sacraments are visible signs, instituted by Christ to give us Grace, so that we are strengthened to run the race as St. Paul says. This includes both Baptism (1 Pet 3:21) which now saves you, and the Eucharist.

On the Eucharist, we trust the 2,000 years of apostolic faith … Christ’s words that “This IS My Body.”

Nothing symbolic here. The disciples took him literally and left him, the Jews then wanted to kill him. Christ didn’t correct any of them. He let them go because he meant what he said.

 

[Wannano]

So many articles and statements about it have made reference to “only symbolic” or “merely symbolic.”

Tomorrow in my faith community we will being have Communion and we see it as “meaningfully symbolic.”

 

[ChadS]

There are many traditions that hold to a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics have transubstantiation, for example, and then many other traditions have somewhat more vaguely-defined conceptions (like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Methodism, namely). We see that many writers of the early Church referenced or described the real presence in some way, and this has been continued.

I would be wary of describing the Orthodox position as being vaguely defined. While they do not use the word Transbustantiation, indeed they tend to eschew any language that attempts to describe something holy and divine, they believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as strongly as any pious Catholic.

Now, I know some will disagree with me on this, however in regards to Methodism, I never really saw any belief in communion as anything more than symbolic. Granted there was an extremely vague belief that Jesus was “spiritually” present, but it never seemed to go beyond that. If Jesus was spiritually present his presence was definitely gone by the end of the service since the grape juice was poured back into the jar and the cubed bread was put back with the rest of the bag.

ChadS

 

[MaryT777]

I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I was given the argument that the Lord’s Supper was instituted as a memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Let’s just say that I took the Lord’s Supper before I was baptized and that was seen as an expected thing to do in the context of that particular church. I did ask about the relevant passages in John and the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. I was told that Jesus spoke in parables and with symbolism all the time. Jesus is the Lamb of God… Do I expect Him to be a literal baby sheep? Jesus is the Vine… do I pick grapes off of Him? An interesting Sunday School class, to say the least. Here is a link to a site that explains the Baptist viewpoint in a little more detail: baptistdistinctives.org/resources/articles/two-ordinances-baptism-and-the-lords-supper/

Thank you for this post; it’s helpful to understand the position of symbolic Communion.
Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

So many articles and statements about it have made reference to “only symbolic” or “merely symbolic.”

Tomorrow in my faith community we will being have Communion and we see it as “meaningfully symbolic.”

The early Church seemed unanimous that real presence was the truth. Martin Luther himself says this:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.** Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
**Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 (bolding mine)

 

[LutheranScholar]

The early Church seemed unanimous that real presence was the truth. Martin Luther himself says this:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.** Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
**Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 (bolding mine)

Well said, Mary. Hence a reason that I am a Lutheran of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod and not a Southern Baptist ( even if I were, the congregation I grew up in no longer exists: property issues forced the council to sell their building and the group scattered to the winds) today.

 

[Wannano]

The early Church seemed unanimous that real presence was the truth. Martin Luther himself says this:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.** Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
**Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 (bolding mine)

I am saddened that you try to get through to me by using Martin Luther. He does not impress me that much to be honest.

Where do we read in Sctptures…read John 6:32 -35. John 6:47 &48

 

[LutheranScholar]

I am saddened that you try to get through to me by using Martin Luther. He does not impress me that much to be honest.

Where do we read in Sctptures…read John 6:32 -35. John 6:47 &48

All Lutherans may be Protestants, but not all Protestants are Lutherans, to be sure. :tiphat:
So, what does meaningfully symbolic mean for your church ( not setting you up, I’d honestly like to know)?

 

[susanlo]

There are many traditions that hold to a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics have transubstantiation, for example, and then many other traditions have somewhat more vaguely-defined conceptions (like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Methodism, namely). We see that many writers of the early Church referenced or described the real presence in some way, and this has been continued.

However, while we often find materials (especially articles from Catholic sites such as this one) that make cases for the real presence, what arguments are used by those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist? These appear to be less common, and the real presence seems to be dismissed entirely or simply argued away as “symbolic.” In fact, GotQuestions’ artice on transubstantiation says this:

How is the real presence dismissed so easily? Are there, or have there been, any real arguments used against it?

Comment and discuss, I’m interested in your responses.

I am not sure if the article you cited first is trying to make the case for the real presence or not. I think it is just showing examples of how the Eucharist was celebrated in the early centuries. There seem to be a wide range of understandings portrayed over the early centuries. I don’t think the writers were aware of the different categories of views we have today and therefore the quotes don’t always fall neatly into a category of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual, or symbolic.

Here are 2 interesting quotes from your article:

Fragments from the lost writings of Irenaeus, chapter 37

“Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by canceling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.”

This could be viewed differently by those coming from different perspectives.

Origen: Against Celsus, chapter 57

“We are much more concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist.”

This seems to portray a symbolic understanding, but it is a short quote taken while he was writing about another point.

Here is a webpage that shares some quotes from the early centuries that seem to show that the writer did not believe in the real presence: carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

This webpage explains some of the early quotations that are used to prove early belief in the real presence and sheds some context on them that calls into question whether the writer truly believed in transubstantiation: justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

JND Kelly (who was a professor and Oxford and an Anglican) writes about the development of the idea of a physical conversion in his book Early Christian Doctrines starting on page 440. It seems to give a good summary of the different ideas that were developing between the time of Nicea and Chalcedon. archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up

 

[Wannano]

All Lutherans may be Protestants, but not all Protestants are Lutherans, to be sure. :tiphat:
So, what does meaningfully symbolic mean for your church ( not setting you up, I’d honestly like to know)?

First we prepare for Communion by examining ourselves before God asking him to reveal any thing in our life and relationship with our fellow man that would makes us unworthy of partaking in the remembrance of His life giving sacrifice on the cross. Each one of us placed Jesus on the cross and He died for all of us. It was the once and for all sacrifice. To pull out a piece of bread from the loaf and while eating it reflect on the reality of his broken body given for even me. To drink of the cup representing His life giving blood split for all men in a spirit of thanksgiving for the remarkable love He has for each one of us and the provision He made for our salvation is soberly meaningful. We do this in remembrance of Him.