The Eucharist ( Holy Communion ) is NOT symbolic…...

bigsurfer63 said:

So many protestants ( evangelicals ) believe the Holy Eucharist ( Holy Communion ) is just plainly symbolic…..
again, no where in the bible does it say that the Eucharist is symbolic & its just a cracker & welches grape juice bought at Wal Mart & to be done once a month or just whenever…
when i was a protestant so many of my former preachers etc….skipped over St John 6:53 cause I'm sure they were afraid / concerned it only proved the Catholic Church was correct about the Eucharist / Transubstantiation…..
As Catholics we take the Eucharist DAILY…..
please watch the video….one of the GREATEST MIRACLES of the CATHOLIC CHURCH…..The Miracle of Lanciano !!!!!
It proves the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
so many evangelicals that I've shared this video with have refused to even watch it cause it might shake their faith to the core on what they have been taught from their pulpits & that they're fearful that the Catholic Church might be right after all…but, the evangelicals that have watched it are now Catholic & or coming Home 2 the 1 True Church…..PAX

Click to expand...

I agree, although interestingly we could well have this discussion in General Theology since we are not in holding this view transgressing the Statement of Faith of this website, nor are we challenging the views of non-Nicene, universalist or other Christians specifically.

Wgw is right to say what he did. The presentation is one we've read and reacted to many times before, and it belongs somewhere other than in this forum. The folks in OBOB would, for example, love to read it and give it their stamp of approval.

Albion said:

Wgw is right to say what he did. The presentation is one we've read and reacted to many times before, and it belongs somewhere other than in this forum. The folks in OBOB would, for example, love to read it and give it their stamp of approval.

Click to expand...

I myself would happily discuss it in Traditional or General Theology in a non-polemical manner.

Wgw said:

I myself would happily discuss it in Traditional or General Theology in a non-polemical manner.

Click to expand...

...with emphasis upon non-polemical. As it was written, this OP is a real groaner.

Albion said:

...with emphasis upon non-polemical. As it was written, this OP is a real groaner.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Son of Man........So bow down to the Son of Man. Remember the Mel Gibson Movie and the ugly kid, Satan was holding.....
I guess there are really 2 Son's........ Son of God, Son of Man.......Same thing or person, right...... I keep thinking about the ugly kid...never did catch his name........So do a DNA match.

bigsurfer63 said:

dont 4get that after Jesus's resurrection when He was walking down the road with the 2 Apostles & they did NOT recognize Him until He gave them the EUCHARIST & then they saw it was HIM !!!!!!!

Click to expand...

He didn't "give them the Eucharist."

bigsurfer63 said:

So many protestants ( evangelicals ) believe the Holy Eucharist ( Holy Communion ) is just plainly symbolic…..
again, no where in the bible does it say that the Eucharist is symbolic & its just a cracker & welches grape juice bought at Wal Mart & to be done once a month or just whenever…
when i was a protestant so many of my former preachers etc….skipped over St John 6:53 cause I'm sure they were afraid / concerned it only proved the Catholic Church was correct about the Eucharist / Transubstantiation…..
As Catholics we take the Eucharist DAILY…..
please watch the video….one of the GREATEST MIRACLES of the CATHOLIC CHURCH…..The Miracle of Lanciano !!!!!
It proves the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
so many evangelicals that I've shared this video with have refused to even watch it cause it might shake their faith to the core on what they have been taught from their pulpits & that they're fearful that the Catholic Church might be right after all…but, the evangelicals that have watched it are now Catholic & or coming Home 2 the 1 True Church…..PAX

Click to expand...

I watched the video and I'm still not catholic. I also read my bible and never found any mention of this "Eucharist". Catholics tend to allow 1000 year old miracles to validate extra biblical doctrine like its an undeniable arugment. Then they slap the word Holy in front of it with some Latin or Greek to make it extra special.

Charismatics do the same thing but instead of miracles they let personal experience from what they perceive to be the HS to guide their doctrine then they add "...in the spirit" at the end of it to lock it.

Future to that there are many who have led their followers astray by claiming another revelation outside of the bible. Islam comes to mind as well as other fringe cult groups of Christianity to numerous to list.

What's missing from these methods? There are many powers in this world so before I affirm these things I will look to scripture to validate it rather than a "miracle" or "personal experience" or "extra revelation". Certainly there are still arguments within scripture for "transubstantiation" but videos of how catholic miracles prove whatever are a dime a dozen and there are just as many that are exposed.

Here's a hint... If you want to prove catholic doctrine to a non-catholic use the bible to do so and stop using catholic jargon like they are the words of Christ himself. Paul recommends "to become all things to all men" so if this stuff is so important to salvation then speak to a Protestant like a Protestant would.

Really, we've many times discussed alleged Eucharistic "miracles" and the various ways that John 6 can be understood.

bigsurfer63 said:

I guess u think the Eucharistic Miracle is fake & u really need 2 read St John 6 again…..lol

Click to expand...

I didn't say the miracle was fake but I do see said miracle being used as key source in establishing if transubstantiation is happening or not. Doctrines shouldn't need divine power to intervene to establish if they are real or not and if they do then the doctrine arguably is too weak to stand by itself and needs the miracle to validate it.

As I mentioned before there are all kinds of powers in this world and history shows us how doctrine and scripture can be perverted by the experiences of some of these powers. Muhammad had contacts with Jews and Christians and had knowledge of scripture but it is his personal divine miracle he clings to that birthed the Quran and formed Islam so not all miracles point to truth.

Supernatural power cannot be our litmus test for doctrines and when they are used that way we turn God into a magician and promote seeking the power rather than God which is a pagan mindset. The OP seems to be more interested in the miracle or evidence of it than the scripture behind the doctrine. If so the OP is irresponsibly using this video as an agenda to promote something that otherwise is too weak in scripture.

Scripture should be used to explain scripture not saints, miracles, divine revelation or whatever manner of extra-biblical sources you can throw. If you need the latter then obviously the doctrine is scripturally too weak to stand on its own.

DamianWarS said:

I didn't say the miracle was fake but I do see said miracle being used as key source in establishing if transubstantiation is happening or not.

Click to expand...

You mean "not see said miracle as being used" that way, I believe. Right.

Jesus said to do it IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM, same as the Israelis were commanded to keep the passover in remembrance of God's destroyer "passing over "the Israelis, and His great miracle of parting the Sea of Reeds for them.

The "Lord's Supper" is symbolic of HIS blood being shed for the remission of OUR sins, and HIS flesh bearing the punishment WE deserve for OUR sins. Yes, it IS symbolic, but we are to recall JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF when we observe it.

robycop3 said:

Jesus said to do it IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM,

Click to expand...

Yes, but he also said more than that about the nature of the meal; and the "remembrance" part of his words came last as almost an addition to his instruction to the Apostles.

Besides, every church that I am aware of, regardless of denomination, agrees that remembrance is part of the meaning of the sacrament, so that aspect of it isn't even worth debating.

Albion said:

Yes, but he also said more than that about the nature of the meal; and the "remembrance" part of his words came last as almost an addition to his instruction to the Apostles.

Besides, every church that I am aware of, regardless of denomination, agrees that remembrance is part of the meaning of the sacrament, so that aspect of it isn't even worth debating.

Click to expand...

The issue is the so-called "real presence" of Christ in the bread and the cup. What people seem to forget is that Christ is really present -- in Spirit -- with those, and in those, who are genuine believers and observe the Remembrance Feast. Eucharist literally means "giving of thanks", and remembrance of what Christ accomplished through His broken body and shed blood leads to thanksgiving and praise. To assign anything more to those elements is to forget that Christ is partaken of by those who receive Him by faith (Rev 3:20). The bread and the cup are clearly symbolic, since Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father as the Man Christ Jesus.

Job8 said:

The issue is the so-called "real presence" of Christ in the bread and the cup.

Click to expand...

It is? What you wrote--and I replied to--seemed only to focus upon the statement from Jesus that the Apostles should observe the holy meal in remembrance of him. ANY understanding of the sacrament that sees in it something more than a mere remembrance would be the opposite of that POV.

What people seem to forget is that Christ is really present -- in Spirit -- with those, and in those, who are genuine believers and observe the Remembrance Feast. Eucharist literally means "giving of thanks", and remembrance of what Christ accomplished through His broken body and shed blood leads to thanksgiving and praise.

Click to expand...

Well, so does any other view of the sacrament.

To assign anything more to those elements is to forget that Christ is partaken of by those who receive Him by faith (Rev 3:20).

Click to expand...

Not at all, it isn't. These several concepts are not exclusive of each other.

Albion said:

Yes, but he also said more than that about the nature of the meal; and the "remembrance" part of his words came last as almost an addition to his instruction to the Apostles.

Besides, every church that I am aware of, regardless of denomination, agrees that remembrance is part of the meaning of the sacrament, so that aspect of it isn't even worth debating.

Click to expand...

^This^

Job8 said:

The issue is the so-called "real presence" of Christ in the bread and the cup. What people seem to forget is that Christ is really present -- in Spirit -- with those, and in those, who are genuine believers and observe the Remembrance Feast. Eucharist literally means "giving of thanks", and remembrance of what Christ accomplished through His broken body and shed blood leads to thanksgiving and praise. To assign anything more to those elements is to forget that Christ is partaken of by those who receive Him by faith (Rev 3:20). The bread and the cup are clearly symbolic, since Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father as the Man Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

I agree. Symbolic.