What arguments are used for symbolic communion?

[susanlo]

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.

I am not the OP, but I believe this is what the quote is based on: newadvent.org/fathers/1701030.htm “For the body of the Lord, in which He rose again from the dead, can be only in one place; but His truth is everywhere diffused.” - Chapter 1

This reminds me of Augustine’s Sermon 272 on the Eucharist: earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
“On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.”"

 

[Lenten_ashes]

" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped.""

Seems to be a pattern of this talk…Symbolic? Yes, but to the human eye only.

 

[gazelam]

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.

Edwin Hatch said this…

“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

J. G. Davies said this…

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)

I hope this helps…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

.
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

The CARM link caught my eye because Matt Slick has admitted on his radio program that he really knows next to nothing about Church fathers.

Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch are condemning cannibalism which the Church is full agreement. It’s a non-bloody sacrifice.

Augustine has been dubbed Mr. Duplicity by some because in some cases he seems Catholic and others resembling a reformed Father. But properly understood I see no problem because I believe he sees this as not a either or proposition…and he is implying that Communion is symbolic to the human eye, which we are all in full agreement with. We accept by faith it is the Lord, body, blood , soul and divinity.

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3162877/posts?page=4

Then Slick quotes St. Clement of Alexandria thinking he supports his position, but if he actually read the same document would find this quote::

And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Like Augustine who encourages DAILY communion, he is teaching sanctifying grace received through the blessed sacrament. Or, the Catholic teaching of infused righteousness, as opposed to the reformed idea of imputed righteousness. So he is not on Slick’s side either as symbols aren’t conveying grace.

The Origen quote is not saying a change doesn’t take place as Slick claims. What he appears to emphasize is how powerful the Word of God is, which consecrates the host. W/O consecration there is no benefit. Origen understood the importance and reality of the sacraments as a means of conveying grace into one’s soul:

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248])

He quotes Tertullian believing it points to symbolism. The author is likely not referring to consecrated elements. He is repudiating a dualist heretic. And the discussion in that paragraph is about elementals from our creator and how they are used in everyday life and in the Church itself. Consider other ***SACRAMENTAL ***quotes from him:

The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God

newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

He also quotes Theodoret.

But look at the quote in it’s context:

Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.— Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?

Orth.— I do.

Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be

I’ve bolded what Slick quoted so we can see the meat of this discussion and not just his cherry picking.

So he believes that after consecration they become the body and blood of Christ, in fact, He says we WORSHIP the elements, just like in today’s Catholic Church. Conceptually, this looks like Lutheranism on steroids, but not quite transubstantiation. But not a symbolic ordinance by any stretch of the imagination.

The only Father on his list who I think may have held some sort of symbolic belief is Eusebius. I have not read all of his work, but I do know he was suspected of leaning towards the Arian heresy, so that’s that.

 

[ltwin]

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 do believe that the bread and wine are symbols. They do not physically transform into Christ’s body and blood. They symbolize Christ’s body and blood.

At the same time, I do not believe in memorialism–the idea that Communion is only a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice with no other spiritual benefits or effects. Communion is a means of grace for those who partake in a faithful and worthy manner.

 

[Darryl_B]

Twenty years ago, I was doing a little study around the Law, what it taught about atonement which lead me eventually to John 6, the effectual. I saw the Law as symbols ineffectual, I saw for the first time, a pointing forward of that Law to the actual body and blood. I shook my head as a protestant, and said to myself I cannot run with this, I will be creating a “new” Christianity, and none of my protestant friends would believe me anyway.

That was my argument for “symbolic”, no one would conceive the possibility, no one would believe it.

Symbols are old school typography, pointing forward to actuality, they are like icons, pointing forward to something greater, something real. That is one sense of the word. The other sense is deeper, a physical object, a supernatural object, where heaven meets earth.

Baptism has become an equivalent meaningless “symbol”. Maybe baptism first needs to return to its Catholic roots, before tackling the Eucharist. When in history was this faith of the supernatural heaven touching earth lost?

 

[Darryl_B]

Communion is a means of grace for those who partake in a faithful and worthy manner.

How exactly is a symbol pretending to be something it isn’t, a grace, in your metaphysics? I would be interested to hear the mechanics.

I have experienced protestant symbolic communion (now lets move onto the sermon), and I have also experienced, by the grace of God, the Catholic communion. I know which one contains grace, and it is the most wonderful relationship to Jesus Christ that I have ever experienced.

 

[Wannano]

How exactly is a symbol pretending to be something it isn’t, a grace, in your metaphysics? I would be interested to hear the mechanics.
.

Excuse me for butting in, I hope itwin gives you his answer. When I pondered your question I was reminded of how Pope Francis washed the feet of 12 people last Easter. Did he wash their feet because they were dirty and needed cleaning? As I read the article in the Catholic Herald the writer stated the obvious. It was an act of love and servanthood symbolizing the acceptance and brotherhood of all God’s people. It was not because they needed their feet cleaned. It was reported that all the recipients of his actions had tears streaming down thier cheeks when their turn came. I would be amazed if any of those twelve would now say they did not receive a grace in that experience.

 

[Reuben_J]

Excuse me for butting in, I hope itwin gives you his answer. When I pondered your question I was reminded of how Pope Francis washed the feet of 12 people last Easter. Did he wash their feet because they were dirty and needed cleaning? As I read the article in the Catholic Herald the writer stated the obvious. It was an act of love and servanthood symbolizing the acceptance and brotherhood of all God’s people. It was not because they needed their feet cleaned. It was reported that all the recipients of his actions had tears streaming down thier cheeks when their turn came. I would be amazed if any of those twelve would now say they did not receive a grace in that experience.

Hi. I would be quick to answer this. Actually they are quite two different things altogether.

I was one of the twelve who had my feet washed by our archbishop last Easter Triduum. I knew what that entailed. My wife took my picture during the washing of our feet, they were quite excited about it. I took it as a privilege though I would rather sit with my family at the Holy Thursday mass, so it was more of a duty for me.

The men cried when the Pope washed their feet. If you went around to the Vatican, attending mass celebrated by the Pope, you would see tears flow from the faithful. Were they graces? Maybe. Not every time one has the opportunity to attend a mass celebrated by the Pope, much less has their feet washed by him.

They are different from the grace of the Eucharist. Here you receive real body and real blood of Jesus Christ to nourish our souls.

God bless.

 

[Wannano]

Hi. I would be quick to answer this. Actually they are quite two different things altogether.

I was one of the twelve who had my feet washed by our archbishop last Easter Triduum. I knew what that entailed. My wife took my picture during the washing of our feet, they were quite excited about it. I took it as a privilege though I would rather sit with my family at the Holy Thursday mass, so it was more of a duty for me.

The men cried when the Pope washed their feet. If you went around to the Vatican, attending mass celebrated by the Pope, you would see tears flow from the faithful. Were they graces? Maybe. Not every time one has the opportunity to attend a mass celebrated by the Pope, much less has their feet washed by him.

They are different from the grace of the Eucharist. Here you receive real body and real blood of Jesus Christ to nourish our souls.

God bless.

I understand and appreciate your position and am not knocking it.

The question was centered on the thought that you cannot receive a grace via a symbolic action. In your reply you indicate you do not necessarily agree with that either as you ask …“we’re they graces?” “Maybe.”

 

[Hatikvah]

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.

If you don’t mind my asking, what tradition do you belong to? Like Baptist or Reformed, etc.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I understand and appreciate your position and am not knocking it.

The question was centered on the thought that you cannot receive a grace via a symbolic action. In your reply you indicate you do not necessarily agree with that either as you ask …“we’re they graces?” “Maybe.”

Don’t mean to interupt, but the Church teaches that there are different kinds of graces one can receive.

One can receive actual grace from just about anything. Sanctifying grace is a different story

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy,

Perhaps you could source Augustine’s original writing for the quote above. I do not find it in the link provided.

It was but here is another.

1. The passage of the holy Gospel of which we have before discoursed to you, beloved, is followed by that of today, which has just now been read. Both the disciples and the Jews heard the Lord speaking; both men of truth and liars heard the Truth speaking; both friends and enemies heard Charity speaking; both good men and bad men heard the Good speaking. They heard, but He discerned; He saw and foresaw whom His discourse profited and would profit. Among those who were then, He saw; among us who were to be, He foresaw. Let us therefore hear the Gospel, just as if we were listening to the Lord Himself present: nor let us say, O happy they who were able to see Him! Because there were many of them who saw, and also killed Him; and there are many among us who have not seen Him, and yet have believed. For the precious truth that sounded forth from the mouth of the Lord was both written for our sakes, and preserved for our sakes, and recited for our sakes, and will be recited also for the sake of our prosperity, even until the end of the world. The Lord is above; but the Lord, the Truth, is also here. For the body of the Lord, in which He rose again from the dead, can be only in one place; but His truth is everywhere diffused.
   Let us then hear the Lord, and let us also speak that which He shall have granted to us concerning His own words.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701030.htm

I am not here to debate the matter though. I merely answered the OP question as I understood symbolic believers to believe.

PS- I just noticed Susanlo had already posted this.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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.

In transubstantiation bread and wine are turned into the Holy Spirit. What do we know of the Holy Spirit as he comes into being within us?

In the Holy Spirit there is prophesying, speaking of tongues, interpretation of tongues, healings, etc…

I say that the sacrifice is empty without these things.

 

[ltwin]

How exactly is a symbol pretending to be something it isn’t, a grace, in your metaphysics? I would be interested to hear the mechanics.

There is nothing pretend about Holy Communion. Yes, the bread and wine are symbolic, but they are not meaningless. Communion, partaken in faith, is an ordinary channel of God’s grace–just as the Word is a channel of grace. I essentially agree with the Wesleyan concept of “means of grace”:

By “means of grace” I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.

I use this expression, means of grace, because I know none better; and because it has been generally used in the Christian church for many ages; – in particular by our own Church, which directs us to bless God both for the means of grace, and hope of glory; and teaches us, that a sacrament is “an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we receive the same.”

The chief of these means are prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures; (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon; ) and receiving the Lord’s Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him: And these we believe to be ordained of God, as the ordinary channels of conveying his grace to the souls of men. . . . .

1. Thirdly. All who desire an increase of the grace of God are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s Supper: For this also is a direction himself hath given. “The same night in which he was betrayed, he took bread, and brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body;” that is, the sacred sign of my body: “This do in remembrance of me.” Likewise, “he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament,” or covenant, “in my blood;” the sacred sign of that covenant; “this do ye in remembrance of me.” “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come:” (1 Cor. 11:23, &c.) Ye openly exhibit the same by, these visible signs, before God, and angels, and men; ye manifest your solemn remembrance of his death, till he cometh in the clouds of heaven.

Only “let a man” first “examine himself,” whether he understand the nature and design of this holy institution, and whether he really desire to be himself made conformable to the death of Christ; and so, nothing doubting, “let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” (1 Cor. 11:28.) . . .

1. And that this is also an ordinary, stated means of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion,” or communication, “of the blood of Christ The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16.) Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible means, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken and the blood of Christ once shed for us Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Or as Oral Roberts used to say, the Lord’s Supper is a “point of contact.”

I have experienced protestant symbolic communion (now lets move onto the sermon),

Communion is typically a big deal in my circles.

and I have also experienced, by the grace of God, the Catholic communion. I know which one contains grace, and it is the most wonderful relationship to Jesus Christ that I have ever experienced.

Good for you.

 

[Darryl_B]

There is nothing pretend about Holy Communion. Yes, the bread and wine are symbolic, but they are not meaningless. Communion, partaken in faith, is an ordinary channel of God’s grace–just as the Word is a channel of grace. I essentially agree with the Wesleyan concept of “means of grace”:

By “means of grace” I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.

I use this expression, means of grace, because I know none better; and because it has been generally used in the Christian church for many ages; – in particular by our own Church, which directs us to bless God both for the means of grace, and hope of glory; and teaches us, that a sacrament is “an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we receive the same.”

The chief of these means are prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures; (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon; ) and receiving the Lord’s Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him: And these we believe to be ordained of God, as the ordinary channels of conveying his grace to the souls of men. . . . .

1. Thirdly. All who desire an increase of the grace of God are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s Supper: For this also is a direction himself hath given. “The same night in which he was betrayed, he took bread, and brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body;” that is, the sacred sign of my body: “This do in remembrance of me.” Likewise, “he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament,” or covenant, “in my blood;” the sacred sign of that covenant; “this do ye in remembrance of me.” “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come:” (1 Cor. 11:23, &c.) Ye openly exhibit the same by, these visible signs, before God, and angels, and men; ye manifest your solemn remembrance of his death, till he cometh in the clouds of heaven.

Only “let a man” first “examine himself,” whether he understand the nature and design of this holy institution, and whether he really desire to be himself made conformable to the death of Christ; and so, nothing doubting, “let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” (1 Cor. 11:28.) . . .

1. And that this is also an ordinary, stated means of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion,” or communication, “of the blood of Christ The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16.) Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible means, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken and the blood of Christ once shed for us Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Or as Oral Roberts used to say, the Lord’s Supper is a “point of contact.”

Communion is typically a big deal in my circles.

Good for you.

My friend, thank you for your answer, I come from a “protestant” perspective where I have never ever never heard a concept of “grace” in communion, so your post was rather surprising in your claim of “grace”. That is as far as I am concerned a new protestant theology, and if it is pursued to its conclusion it can only mean one thing. I hope it will provide an opportunity for discussion.

“Good for you” is the wrong answer. “Good for everyone” would be more correct.

 

[Darryl_B]

A very important word in this would be “propitiation”. That is the word removed from the protestant bible salvation mechanics. It is not the removal of books, it is not the insertion of only words. It is the removal of “propitiation” that defined protestant. Once the priest is removed, the Church is removed, once the Church is removed we can define our own path to God and experience our own teachers, who will never mention the word “propitiation”.

 

[alwayswill]

A very important word in this would be “propitiation”. That is the word removed from the protestant bible salvation mechanics. It is not the removal of books, it is not the insertion of only words. It is the removal of “propitiation” that defined protestant. Once the priest is removed, the Church is removed, once the Church is removed we can define our own path to God and experience our own teachers, who will never mention the word “propitiation”.

It is so easy to fact check your claim.

KJV Bible search results
Romans 3:25
whom God hath set forth to be a** propitiation** through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

1 John 2:2
and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the** propitiation** for our sins.
**
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)**

**
ESV search results**
Romans 3:25 [Full Chapter]
whom God put forward as a** propitiation** by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Romans 3:25
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

English Standard Version (ESV)

Here are over a 100 sermons from John MacArthur that talk about propitiation
gty.org/search/propitiation

another 100 from John Piper
desiringgod.org/search/results?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=propitiation#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=propitiation&gsc.page=1

30 results here from the RC Sproul website
monergism.com/search?keywords=propitiation&format=All

** article of faith from the Methodist Church**
umc.org/what-we-believe/the-articles-of-religion-of-the-methodist-church-xix-xxiii:
Article XX-Of the One Oblation of Christ, Finished upon the Cross

The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

etc
etc

 

[alwayswill]

A very important word in this would be “propitiation”. That is the word removed from the protestant bible salvation mechanics. It is not the removal of books, it is not the insertion of only words. It is the removal of “propitiation” that defined protestant. Once the priest is removed, the Church is removed, once the Church is removed we can define our own path to God and experience our own teachers, who will never mention the word “propitiation”.

Yes! it is a very important word:
So it is important to know what it means

Protestants say that it means to appease /satisfy the wrath of God
what do you think it means?

And here is a very important question:
**Was propitiation made at the Last Supper? **
Protestants answer no.
What do you say?

 

[Peter_J]

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)?

Oddly enough, one thing I thought of, seeing this thread, is that many people nowadays, including many RCs, don’t know what e.g. Martin Luther really taught – but of course, I don’t suggest that that is the only reason.