Catholic Eucharist Actual Blood and Body?

[cajunhillbilly]

The interesting thing about the Biblical argument is that doesn't settle the question. I think Jesus meant "is" figuratively. However just about every view except that Catholic works fine with a figurative reading of Jesus' words. I see the bread and wine as visible signs showing the actual presence of Christ's body and blood. "This is my body" is figurative, because the bread isn't fully equated with Jesus' body. But the bread is the visible sign of the presence of his body. Luther himself took "this is my body" quite literally, but I think even the Lutheran view of the real presence is also compatible with seeing the words as non-literal.

It is not an issue of figurative verses literal. We need to think sacramentally. As a Presbyterian you understand a sacrament verses an "ordinace" as our Anabaptist/Baptist friends call it. a sacrament is a sign and seal of a spiritual reality. The reality is the Body broken and Blood poured out for sinners. The sacrament is the sign and seal of the Body and Blood. There is a sacramnetal union of the sign and what is signified. I think the Lutheran view recognizes that. Calvins original view (read Given for You http://www.amazon.com/Given-You-Rec...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326143986&sr=1-1) also recognizes that. It was Zwingli who introduced the idea of figurative language in refernce to the sacraments. I like the attitude of the EOs. It is a mystery, so don't try to figure it out. We are sacramentally united to Christ and partake of His Body and Blood sacramentally. That is all we need to know.

 

[whitetiger1]

The interesting thing about the Biblical argument is that doesn't settle the question. I think Jesus meant "is" figuratively. However just about every view except that Catholic works fine with a figurative reading of Jesus' words. I see the bread and wine as visible signs showing the actual presence of Christ's body and blood. "This is my body" is figurative, because the bread isn't fully equated with Jesus' body. But the bread is the visible sign of the presence of his body. Luther himself took "this is my body" quite literally, but I think even the Lutheran view of the real presence is also compatible with seeing the words as non-literal.

The meaning of "is" is

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip> Luther himself took "this is my body" quite literally, but I think even the Lutheran view of the real presence is also compatible with seeing the words as non-literal.

Yes, Luther did; Just as all Confessional Lutherans do to this day:

AUGSBURG CONFESSION, ARTICLE X.
The Lord's Supper

"Our Churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16). They reject those who teach otherwise."

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Yes, Luther did; Just as all Confessional Lutherans do to this day:

AUGSBURG CONFESSION, ARTICLE X.
The Lord's Supper

"Our Churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16). They reject those who teach otherwise."

If I didn't believe in Apostolic Succession I would consider the Lutehran churches. That is why I am Anglican. The Anglican church seeks to maintain the apostolic succession. Of course our RCC friends will tell you they do not recognize our succession.

 

[Standing Up]

If I didn't believe in Apostolic Succession I would consider the Lutehran churches. That is why I am Anglican. The Anglican church seeks to maintain the apostolic succession. Of course our RCC friends will tell you they do not recognize our succession.

Given the subject, it's very ironic. If you don't intend it as a sacrifice and if you don't have your physical lineage and something else, then no your offering is void and null.

PS. It's also sorta funny that back at the Great Schism they so declared the same on each other. What a mess.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

If I didn't believe in Apostolic Succession I would consider the Lutehran churches. That is why I am Anglican. The Anglican church seeks to maintain the apostolic succession. Of course our RCC friends will tell you they do not recognize our succession.

In olden times I would say that I kinda agree with you on the Anglican Apostolic succession issue, but now with female bishops it's much more muddied and I would rather err on the side of caution.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

In olden times I would say that I kinda agree with you on the Anglican Apostolic succession issue, but now with female bishops it's much more muddied and I would rather err on the side of caution.

yes the whole ordaining of women ministers bothers me as wrong, unBiblical and contrary to the teachings of the church. So I am currently attending a break away Anglican parish.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If I didn't believe in Apostolic Succession I would consider the Lutehran churches. That is why I am Anglican. The Anglican church seeks to maintain the apostolic succession. Of course our RCC friends will tell you they do not recognize our succession.

In olden times I would say that I kinda agree with you on the Anglican Apostolic succession issue, but now with female bishops it's much more muddied and I would rather err on the side of caution.

yes the whole ordaining of women ministers bothers me as wrong, unBiblical and contrary to the teachings of the church. So I am currently attending a break away Anglican parish.

There are some Synods which do have "unbroken" Apostolic Succession as defined by the RCC; mainly in Scandinavia. However, these Synods have also become very "liberal" regarding the ordination of women and practising homosexuals.

Anglicans have always considered our Eucharist as valid; as one can make the argument, based on Scripture, that Presbyterial Ordination and Consecration of Bishops (Synod Presidents) does maintain an unbroken lineage; likewise, who selects or elects Bishops or how it has been done, seems of little little consequence (St. Ambrose of Milan for example) ... but that's a discussion for another thread.

While I stress that we are not in fellowship, LCMS and LCC are currently engaged in a very positive dialogue with the ACNA; and our Synods have always have maintained such positive dialogue whit the RCC as well.

An interesting side note... The Anglican Cathedral in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (they are staunchly "Oxford Movement") is most graciously allowing LCC to use their Chapel for our mission to establish Confessional Lutheranism in that Province.

We teach and believe that the efficacy of the Sacrament come from God's Holy Word... Back to our Confessions:

THE APOLOGY (EXPLANATION) OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION
Articles VII and VIII (IV) 19, 20:

"...Word and Sacrament are powerful (efficacious) even when administered by the wicked"
<and>
"The Church does not consist of people in power or ecclesiastical or secular dignity, because many princes and archbishops and others of lower rank have been found to have apostatized from the faith. Therefore, the Church consists of those persons in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith and truth."

 

[3rdHeaven]

No it's not cannibalism, we just eat flesh and drink blood some times.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

Again the practice is not in question here, we are to do the communion, but the wine does not turn in to blood or the bread in to flesh, this is an example of some taking something figuratively as literal. I wonder if they are also on the look out for literally wolves in sheeps clothing too?

If John 6 were figurative, why would so many be disturbed by Jesus' teaching and leave? If Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, but it is merely a symbolic gesture, how is it possible to receive stale bread and a sip of wine unworthily as St. Paul indicates, and how can doing so bring judgement?

 

[3rdHeaven]

If John 6 were figurative, why would so many be disturbed by Jesus' teaching and leave? If Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, but it is merely a symbolic gesture, how is it possible to receive stale bread and a sip of wine unworthily as St. Paul indicates, and how can doing so bring judgement?

We are to do this in memory of Jesus. He referred to Himself as the Bread of Life that comes down from Heaven, do you visualize Jesus coming down from heaven as a loaf of bread? Of course not, your able to recognize a figure of speech some times. It was the last supper and they did as they ALWAYS did before then, broke bread with some wine. Since this was His last supper with them He spoke to continue this practice and remember Him. He is the Bread of Life, the wine is symbolic for the blood he would shed for them and every one!

To practice this and not have your heart in Jesus, or truly be a follower rather then lip service, you can part take in this practice all you want, it will be meaningless for you truly are unworthy. Remember, it is not by works or lip service we are saved! I have no problem following Paul's train of thought and message on this matter. You on the other hand have been indoctrinated with a view that has clouded your ability to see what is plainly there. A doctrine planted by men, not God.

However as inaccurate as this may be, I do not see it harmful if that's what you want to believe, that you are eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood. And even if you visualized Jesus coming down from heaven as a loaf of bread I would not think that is harmful either. I just find it odd so many take a rather obvious symbolic gesture and turn it into a literal even and then when they discover the bread does not taste like flesh and the wine does not taste like blood, they then proceed to invent a explanation for that too. Many hoops must be jumped thru to make this view work

 

[ViaCrucis]

So which one is it, finally - transubstantiation or consubstantiation?

I'd say we shouldn't try and over-complicate it. Jesus said "this is My body" and "this is My blood", it's not our job to figure out how it is true, just that it is true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

We are to do this in memory of Jesus. He referred to Himself as the Bread of Life that comes down from Heaven, do you visualize Jesus coming down from heaven as a loaf of bread? Of course not, your able to recognize a figure of speech some times. It was the last supper and they did as they ALWAYS did before then, broke bread with some wine. Since this was His last supper with them He spoke to continue this practice and remember Him. He is the Bread of Life, the wine is symbolic for the blood he would shed for them and every one!

To practice this and not have your heart in Jesus, or truly be a follower rather then lip service, you can part take in this practice all you want, it will be meaningless for you truly are unworthy. Remember, it is not by works or lip service we are saved! I have no problem following Paul's train of thought and message on this matter. You on the other hand have been indoctrinated with a view that has clouded your ability to see what is plainly there. A doctrine planted by men, not God.

However as inaccurate as this may be, I do not see it harmful if that's what you want to believe, that you are eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood. And even if you visualized Jesus coming down from heaven as a loaf of bread I would not think that is harmful either. I just find it odd so many take a rather obvious symbolic gesture and turn it into a literal even and then when they discover the bread does not taste like flesh and the wine does not taste like blood, they then proceed to invent a explanation for that too. Many hoops must be jumped thru to make this view work

If it was "obviously symbolic" then how is it that every Christian, starting with the Apostles themselves, up until Ulrich Zwingli, understood it as real?

It's obvious that it's not "obviously symbolic", as this is what every Christian has believed since the Lord's Supper itself took place. The only ones who challenged the Real Presence before Zwingli were Gnostics who rejected all materiality as vain and evil anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[3rdHeaven]

So then, do you take Jesus to be the Bread of Life Literally too?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So then, do you take Jesus to be the Bread of Life Literally too?

No, but I receive Jesus--who is the Bread of Life--in the Eucharist loaf.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Standing Up]

If John 6 were figurative, why would so many be disturbed by Jesus' teaching and leave?

They had skipped over v 35 wherein Jesus tells us what He means. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

They were used to some 613 commandments. It flew right over their heads.

If Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, but it is merely a symbolic gesture, how is it possible to receive stale bread and a sip of wine unworthily as St. Paul indicates, and how can doing so bring judgement?

The context is the Body. Brothers and sisters in the Lord. Some don't see their brothers and sisters in the Lord except as maybe half brothers, without the fullness of the faith.

 

[Standing Up]

If it was "obviously symbolic" then how is it that every Christian, starting with the Apostles themselves, up until Ulrich Zwingli, understood it as real?

It's obvious that it's not "obviously symbolic", as this is what every Christian has believed since the Lord's Supper itself took place. The only ones who challenged the Real Presence before Zwingli were Gnostics who rejected all materiality as vain and evil anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

There definitely was that thread of God-in-the-flesh to keep the symbolic from disappearing into vain imagination.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

If it was "obviously symbolic" then how is it that every Christian, starting with the Apostles themselves, up until Ulrich Zwingli, understood it as real?

It's obvious that it's not "obviously symbolic", as this is what every Christian has believed since the Lord's Supper itself took place. The only ones who challenged the Real Presence before Zwingli were Gnostics who rejected all materiality as vain and evil anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

I was going to point this out as well. But most evangelicals today ignore the history of doctrine. They think NOTHING exists between the time of the Apostles and today. They could care less what the vast majority of Christian theologians thought or taught, unless it is to support their views. The fact of the Real Presence was taught throughout the entire history of the Church. Even Calvin believed in it. The arguments were over HOW Christ was present. And no, not even the Roman theologians agreed on all the particulars of the Real Presence until Trent defined it using Aquinas. I read a book recently on Calvins view of the Eucharist called Given for You. And the author showed that Calvin did believe Christ was present in the Lord's Supper. He also gave an extensive history of the Eucharistic teaching of previous theologians. Like CryptoLutheran said, the memorial only view was introduced by Zwingli in the 1600s. And it is not sure even he believed it or his followers just took his thought to their logical conclusions.

 

[Anoetos]

So then, do you take Jesus to be the Bread of Life Literally too?

Is He not the very Bread of Life? Our very sustenance? Our nourishment and life?

He literally is the Bread of Life. He is not a loaf of bread, but in the Sacrament, the bread is a sign signifying Him and in it He is really there.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Is He not the very Bread of Life? Our very sustenance? Our nourishment and life?

He literally is the Bread of Life. He is not a loaf of bread, but in the Sacrament, the bread is a sign signifying Him and in it He is really there.

amen