Eucharist - Flesh & Blood?

[Albion]

Saint Paul

"Is not the cup of blessing a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
"a man should examine himself first . . . anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:28-29)​

hardly sounds like someone teaching the Eucharist is merely symbolism and that is just two examples from Saint Paul.

Not so fast. Those words can indeed be understood as having a spiritual meaning rather than a literal one. Read them with that in mind and see that it is entirely so. Here's an example...Do we say that the flag is hunks of red, white and blue fabric and nothing more? Or do we say that when they are arranged in a certain way, they take on a meaning for us Americans that is much more than enjoying colors flapping in the wind? I think the answer to that has to be "yes," we do think of it as meaning more.

This is not the end of the argument, but those verses in themselves do not close the door on views of the Lord's Supper other than one or another of the varieties that involve belief in the Real Presence.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not so fast. Those words can indeed be understood as having a spiritual meaning rather than a literal one. Read them with that in mind and see that it is entirely so. Here's an example...Do we say that the flag is hunks of red, white and blue fabric and nothing more? Or do we say that when they are arranged in a certain way, they take on a meaning for us Americans that is much more than enjoying colors flapping in the wind? I think the answer to that has to be "yes," we do think of it as meaning more.

This is not the end of the argument, but those verses in themselves do not close the door on views of the Lord's Supper other than one or another of the varieties that involve belief in the Real Presence.

Did not claim Saint Paul's quotes make it a shut door, but since you mention it how would one argue that Saint Paul would see someone needing to be done in a worthy manner or else be rather sternly held responsible for NOT doing so if Saint Paul merely saw it as a symbol?

To take you example, while I do strongly object to someone disrespecting a symbol that represents the high cost of the freedom which actually allows them to express their opinions, that objection does not mean I see them guilty of the deaths of those who defended that freedom. And it would a very harsh opinion for me to express - though I could see such a statement/expression coming from heated emotions in front of someone burning a flag. While the Saint seemed certainly a firebrand of emotions , I do not see him leading with emotion there in that particular expression of a teaching to Christians about how one should approach the Eucharist. He certainly led with emotions in other speeches in front of and for Jewish authorities - which eventually catches up to him. Am seeing a calm teacher in these verses warning his studies to not do something. Something with grave consequence if done.

Besides, to see Saint Paul as speaking about a symbol still does not address how it comes to be a wide-spread belief in the Church without Saint Paul or any Apostle objecting that it is just a symbol. And obviously someone here wanting to discredit Saint Paul is seeing these Words of his the same way the Church does or else there would be no need to discredit him so.

 

[Hank77]

I also cannot see why it would occur to a Catholic theologian to promote such a theory, unless he was having trouble with the same view of justification, Grace, the Sacraments...etc, which would also then be leading him away from the Church.

OK, that's all there is to it, than. When you wrote that it is traceable to "1500 years after" (the start of the church), that wording undeniably seems pointed at the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. I wanted to say for the record that that's incorrect. The Reformers were strong defenders of Scripture, as most people know, and would not speak of Paul's Epistles as uninspired.

I have never seen any writing by any Reformation commentator that defrauds Paul in anyway, quite the opposite. Of my 40 yrs. in churches I had never heard this denial of Paul until I heard it on the internet by obscure posts from individuals. I remember that one such man, who didn't accept Paul, was Indian and living in India. He basically believed only the Gospels. India has a large Muslim influence. Which caused me to wonder if this idea had originated with Muslim converts, seeing the Muslims do believe that Jesus was a prophet sent by God.

 

[Albion]

Did not claim Saint Paul's quotes make it a shut door, but since you mention it how would one argue that Saint Paul would see someone needing to be done in a worthy manner or else be rather sternly held responsible for NOT doing so if Saint Paul merely saw it as a symbol?

Well, to return to my flag analogy, what do we say about burning the US flag or, as was in the news recently, using it as a doormat to be stepped on and soiled? Do we normally say, "It's just a 3x5' piece of colored cotton, so what's the difference?" No, most people do not. Why not? Because of what it means, and that is quite emotional, non-literal, etc. We might even say "symbolic." If you desecrate a symbol of something held dear, it's still an offense.

To take you example, while I do strongly object to someone disrespecting a symbol that represents the high cost of the freedom which actually allows them to express their opinions, that objection does not mean I see them guilty of the deaths of those who defended that freedom. And it would a very harsh opinion for me to express - though I could see such a statement/expression coming from heated emotions. While the Saint seemed certainly a firebrand of emotions, I do not see him leading with emotion there in that particular expression of a teaching to Christians about how one should approach the Eucharist.

Well, you MAY be right about that, but I think it's far from certain. We do use somewhat flowery language at times when speaking of our most cherished values and that may well be what Paul was doing. I do not, BTW, think he LITERALLY meant that one who takes Communion unworthily is "guilty" of Christ's death in a judicial sense, as a murderer. I think almost everyone recognizes that he meant that one who does so spiritually, symbolically, or emotionally associates himself with the unjust killing of Jesus or shows his disinterest in Christ's sacrifice. And that's pretty serious stuff in itself.

Besides, to see Saint Paul as speaking about a symbol still does not address how it comes to be a wide-spread belief in the Church without Saint Paul or any Apostle objecting that it is just a symbol.

I wasn't addressing that. And I also was not affirming it. I believe in the Real Presence.

I was merely pointing out that those particular proof texts do not prove your point as you must have thought they do. That doesn't mean, BTW, that others which might be used don't work better.

 

[Albion]

I have never seen any writing by any Reformation commentator that defrauds Paul in anyway, quite the opposite.

That reminds me that, among Lutheran congregations in the USA, "St. Paul's Lutheran Church" is one of the most common names in use. It may even be #1.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well, to return to my flag analogy, what do we say about burning the US flag or, as was in the news recently, using it as a doormat to be stepped on and soiled? Do we normally say, "It's just a 3x5' piece of colored cotton, so what's the difference?" No, most people do not. Why not? Because of what it means, and that is quite emotional, non-literal, etc. We might even say "symbolic." If you desecrate a symbol of something held dear, it's still an offense.


Well, you MAY be right about that, but I think it's far from certain. We do use somewhat flowery language at times when speaking of our most cherished values and that may well be what Paul was doing. I do not, BTW, think he LITERALLY meant that one who takes Communion unworthily is "guilty" of Christ's death in a judicial sense, as a murderer. I think almost everyone recognizes that he meant that one who does so spiritually, symbolically, or emotionally associates himself with the unjust killing of Jesus or shows his disinterest in Christ's sacrifice. And that's pretty serious stuff in itself.


I wasn't addressing that. And I also was not affirming it. I believe in the Real Presence.

I was merely pointing out that those particular proof texts do not prove your point as you must have thought they do. That doesn't mean, BTW, that others which might be used don't work better.

Saying something is offensive, even very offensive is not the same as claiming doing it makes the person guilty of murder. So the comparison only works from an emotional standpoint and not in any sense as a teaching point which appears the reason for the Letters to the Corinthians. Besides people burning flags are not even displaying respect or honor - to make such a comparison with Saint Paul's statement one would need to say someone is saluting/honoring/respecting the flag who has not made himself worthy to do so before doing that. And it would then be the unworthiness making them guilty of murder in their show of respect.

Look at it another way. To be guilty of His Blood cannot, in any manner, that guilt cannot stem from an act considered to be associating oneself with God - which regardless of how one sees those verses would make that act a grave sin to do. That would true whatever one imagines Saint Paul to be telling them NOT to do and regardless if one thinks he was over emoting in saying it or not.

And I acknowledged already those verses do not prove my point beyond all doubt, but I disagree strongly that this understanding doesn't make a far better case of support for than any other understanding against a Real Presence. And I know Anglicans use the same verses to say so as well. So I do in that sense see that understanding as working far better to understand Saint Paul than any other, and that would also be the position of others here as well who feel the need to discredit him.

 

[Righttruth]

Ah, typical. A letter to the Church in Corinth, and specifically the section we now call 1 Cor 15.
Before we jump on the band wagon of this "evil Saint" corrupting Jesus' teachings idea, lets look at the reference cited as alleged support for the claim. Remember too that most of Saint Paul's letters are either encouragement or correction (or both) to communities of believers (Churches) he had worked to established. It is important to see those letters for what those writings really are rather than insisting it represents the Apostle and Saint creating "new" teachings.

If we actually read the entire letter and not just what someone claims a single verse means, we should note the Saint's repeating reference to "we" and "they" and then ask our self which group does Saint Paul indicate the people said to be baptizing the dead belong. To not do at least that much before claiming one understands what the writer meant by that single verse referenced is not just sloppy but lazy.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? [KJV]

29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?[NASB]

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?[ESV]

29 However, people are baptized because the dead [will come back to life]. What will they do? If the dead can't come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can [come back to life]?[GW]

29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?[NET]

29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?[NKJV]

I have quoted different versions. All seem to indicate that Paul endorsed such an arrangement. He did not oppose it!

 

[Righttruth]

1Co 15:29 Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead?
This is a difficult verse for sure but because of the other teachings of Paul we know that he is not talking about people being baptized For dead people. He would be teaching against his own Gospel message. We know that before being baptized one must believe and repent.

By the way, what was his gospel?

What I believe Paul is referring to in this verse is the hope of (for) our resurrection. That would be within the context of the scripture. His wording and thoughts rather along the lines of this....
Here he speaks of the new life we live in Christ. But it is also our hope to be raised from death in Him. So our baptism can symbolize both.

Rom 6:3 are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?
Rom 6:4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
Rom 6:5 For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of the rising again;

1Co 15:15 and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise;
1Co 15:16 for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen,
1Co 15:21 for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead,

All these are being thrown to read the thoughts of Paul otherwise. In plain speaking, Paul simply never opposed it, that is, the arrangement for baptism for the dead!

 

[Albion]

Saying something is offensive, even very offensive is not the same as claiming doing it makes the person guilty of murder. So the comparison only works from an emotional standpoint and not in any sense as a teaching point which appears the reason for the Letters to the Corinthians. Besides people burning flags are not even displaying respect or honor - to make such a comparison with Saint Paul's statement one would need to say someone is saluting/honoring/respecting the flag who has not made himself worthy to do so before doing that. And it would then be the unworthiness making them guilty of murder in their show of respect.

Look at it another way. To be guilty of His Blood cannot, in any manner, that guilt cannot stem from an act considered to be associating oneself with God - which regardless of how one sees those verses would make that act a grave sin to do. That would true whatever one imagines Saint Paul to be telling them NOT to do and regardless if one thinks he was over emoting in saying it or not.

And I acknowledged already those verses do not prove my point beyond all doubt

I'm afraid that I don't agree with all the above, but if we agree that the verses in question don't settle the matter in favor of Real Presence or Transubstantiation, that's something.

but I disagree strongly that this understanding doesn't make a far better case of support for than any other understanding against a Real Presence.

That's too bad. However, I suppose it is a consequence of your religious training. Often times, it's hard for any of us to see beyond our built-in presuppositions when dealing with anything close to a "gray area" in Scripture, to separate the Catechism from the Bible.

 

[1213]

Let me start off by saying, overall in my life, I have not believed the eucharist to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus; multiple reasons for believing so, the most being that if it were the ACTUAL body and blood, not only does it shrink the Cross of Jesus, but also the writers of the N.T. would have shed more light upon its' Nature: how to handle it, formally, prayers, etc. - we're talking about the BODY OF GOD, and His BLOOD!

I think these are good to know in this case:

So Jesus told them, “Truly, truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves.
John 6:53

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Does this offend you?
John. 6:61

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

That seems to indicate that it is His words and spirit that are the actual blood and bread.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? [KJV]

29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?[NASB]

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?[ESV]

29 However, people are baptized because the dead [will come back to life]. What will they do? If the dead can't come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can [come back to life]?[GW]

29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?[NET]

29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?[NKJV]

I have quoted different versions. All seem to indicate that Paul endorsed such an arrangement. He did not oppose it!

Apparently you read those as well as my post. Why did Saint Paul say "they" in referring to these particular folks and used the inclusive "we" everywhere else in the letter when talking about othe Christians in the same area.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm afraid that I don't agree with all the above, but if we agree that the verses in question don't settle the matter in favor of Real Presence or Transubstantiation, that's something.


That's too bad. However, I suppose it is a consequence of your religious training. Often times, it's hard for any of us to see beyond our built-in presuppositions when dealing with anything close to a "gray area" in Scripture, to separate the Catechism from the Bible.

Am not sure that is case when a Protestant here openly trashes Saint Paul because they understand those verses expressing support for the Eucharist. Are you suggesting the Protestant objecting is following the Catechism in their understanding of what this verses from Saint Paul's letter mean and therefore rejects it because that is what the Church teaches? That seems convoluted.

I would think it more likely that a Protestant objecting to the teaching on the Eucharist would either object to the Church's understanding of Saint Paul's verses as expressed in the Catechism or if it were true they could see an alternative understanding that negated the teaching they would go with that (as others here have). So it seems to me the existence of people saying that this teaching represents Saint Paul going rogue suggests, like the Church, these same people see these verses more likely than not expressing the very teaching they object too and that more likely than suggesting Saint Paul is misunderstood by the Church. Otherwise they would just claim, as many other Protesters do, the Church got Saint Paul all wrong here and the verse can be understood another way.

 

[Albion]

Am not sure that is case when a Protestant here openly trashes Saint Paul

Whoa. "A Protestant?" Which church are you referring to--"The United Protestant Church of North America?" "The Protestant Church USA?"

No broad-brushed attack like that is fair.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Whoa. "A Protestant?" Which church are you referring to--"The United Protestant Church of North America?" "The Protestant Church USA?"

No broad-brushed attack like that is fair.

That was not a reference to a Church, but a person who clearly holds beliefs in protest of those of the Church, which would mean such a person is properly called a Protestant Christian - as that is the root of the label. As to which Church the individual belongs - I think the label is non-denominational - but that is still protesting and yes it is broad label but not a meaningless one. And yes it is obviously so broad that there is no uniformity among the protestors on lots of specific issues, but they are still each properly called Protestants and clearly not Catholic. Was not trying to label one particular unique view of a group of Protestants as representative of the whole - that would be rather silly given the breadth of variations.

More to the point of the thread and your reply to me - which I understood you to be saying my view was being shaped by my Catholic presuppositions, I was trying to express that those CANNOT be the presuppositions behind the poster here supporting that Saint Paul is a rouge that mislead the Church. Yet while claiming he is a rouge, the same poster clearly sees Saint Paul's statements as supporting the Eucharist (in agreement with the Church on that point), else there would be no need to trash the Saint.

So I was saying, if that poster could see an alternative understanding of Saint Paul's statements as being more plausible than the understanding the Church has maintained for thousands of years, obviously that poster and others sharing the same take on the Eucharist would support that understanding over trying to trash a Saint who many would argue was the greatest 1st century evangelist the Church had.

 

[Albion]

That was not a reference to a Church, but a person who clearly holds beliefs in protest of those of the Church, which would mean such a person is properly called a Protestant Christian

Oh, so you neither understand the meaning of the word Protestant nor appreciate my point--that it's disingenuous to lump together all Christians who might be termed Protestants for purposes of criticizing some of them.

Among Protestants, some are on your side in this matter and some are on the other side, but you chose to dismiss all Protestants as though they are peas in a pod. You wouldn't like me doing that, nor would it be fair, if I were to say something like "churches with bishops are in favor of women priests these days, so you....."

If you don't get the point here (which I suspect may turn out to be the case), then you don't, that's all.

 

[Neochristian]

I was under the impression that His body is His behavior and His blood is His mind. After all, right before He breaks bread He flat-out mentions setting a good example.

 

[Albion]

I was under the impression that His body is His behavior and His blood is His mind. After all, right before He breaks bread He flat-out mentions setting a good example.

I've gotta admit to never having heard that slant on the subject before.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Oh, so you neither understand the meaning of the word Protestant nor appreciate my point--that it's disingenuous to lump together all Christians who might be termed Protestants for purposes of criticizing some of them.

Among Protestants, some are on your side in this matter and some are on the other side, but you chose to dismiss all Protestants as though they are peas in a pod. You wouldn't like me doing that, nor would it be fair, if I were to say something like "churches with bishops are in favor of women priests these days, so you....."

If you don't get the point here (which I suspect may turn out to be the case), then you don't, that's all.

I was NOT speaking about how the various Protestant opinions regarding Communion came about, but how it came to be that Saint Paul was discredited by Protestants and that position having origin/necessity in the Reformation, which I do not think can be denied. That discrediting of an Apostle is certainly wrapped up in the need to redefine things like justification and application of Grace, both of which the Sacrament of the Eucharist is tightly wrapped just as all the Sacraments are. The need to define or re-defining those things (by multiple ways) by Protestants is also certainly wrapped up in why Saint Paul either fell from favor in some circles (as the men whose lead righttruth follows) or they had to view Saint Paul's writings with a different understanding, ALL of which only arises as another of many various fruits of the Reformation and all I meant by my replies. And I think it is just as fair for a Catholic to lay all those fruits and resulting divisions at the roots of the Reformation, even if not all the resulting varied opinions reached can be found precisely expressed in the leaders of that movement. Yes, just as fair as it would be for a Protestant to give the blame the other way in saying if the Church had "reformed" itself quicker the Body of Christ might be far less divided today than it is.

My comments regarding the origin of rightruth's opinions about Saint Paul were never intended to paint a false picture of all Protestants being united in whatever Communion they practice. Having once been an Evangelical Presbyterian from originally raised Southern Baptist and a few other detours along the way to the Church; am certainly aware there are many views of Communion among Protestants besides mere symbolism. My intent was to point out the irony in ONE of righttruth's objection to the teaching on the Eucharist. He clearly states this Eucharist teaching is based on "teachings of men" instead of Christ, and he sees this particular teaching supported and originally instigated or at least popularized by Saint Paul in his letters to Churches. I do not think I am mis-stating Righttruth's opinion in that regard or surely he would have objected by now. But his very opinion of Saint Paul to justify his position against the Eucharist as a "teaching of men", is itself clearly rooted in the "teachings of men" about that Saint.

So to say my response to Righttruth was an attempt to paint all Protestants as having a single united view of Communion is taking what I said beyond what was intended. In my opinion it is also out of context from the discussion going before you joined it. You are free to hold your own opinion of why I made those comments.

 

[Albion]

I was NOT speaking about how the various Protestant opinions regarding Communion came about, but how it came to be that Saint Paul was discredited by Protestants .

As we already discussed, you DID speak to the issue of where that opinion came about when you identified it with "1500 years after." Now the issue is you attacking Protestants indiscriminately. I'm a Protestant, and I've been emphatic in rejecting that discrediting of Paul. So where does that leave you?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

As we already discussed, you DID speak to the issue of where that opinion came about when you identified it with "1500 years after." Now the issue is you attacking Protestants indiscriminately. I'm a Protestant, and I've been emphatic in rejecting that discrediting of Paul. So where does that leave you?

It leaves me just as I originally said regarding this distorted view of Saint Paul, which both of us oppose, that it could only have had it's origin in the Reformation, which is the only reason my "about 1500" years becomes meaningful.

I've seen no evidence presented that such a view of Saint Paul had it's roots anywhere else to contradict my statement. And saying an idea had it's roots in the Reformation, (which was "about 1500 years later" as I stated), does not require an assumption that all Protestants (or Reformers) hold that idea about Saint Paul nor does saying that require me to assume all are united on Communion. Which does leave me wondering whether someone wanting to continue claiming that my reply to someone else was an overstatement based on my alleged ignorance of Protestants or the Reformation doesn't obviously have more issues with the Church represented by my faith icon than difficulty with my replies.