Eucharist - Flesh & Blood?

Is the Eucharist symbolic or literal

  • Literal

  • Symbolic

  • Not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
It no more had its "origin" in the Reformation of "1500 years after" than it had its origin in the establishment of the first congregation of Christians in Jerusalem ca.33 AD. It's a rather recent development in Church history.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It no more had its "origin" in the Reformation of "1500 years after" than it had its origin in the establishment of the first congregation of Christians in Jerusalem ca.33 AD. It's a rather recent development in Church history.
Well saying something had it roots in something from about 500 years ago is suggesting it is relatively modern. And once again, it cannot be denied the only need to seek to discredit Saint Paul (whether fully as some do here or not) is driven by needing to redefine things like justification and application of Grace which is clearly rooted in the Reformation. That was never suggested to say none but Catholics accept Saint Paul's teachings, clearly many Protestants use some of the same letters of this Apostle as the Church does to support their particular view of Communion. And some of those views are very close to the Church's.

However, our "Saint Paul is a rogue" brother goes much further than that and he already admittedly must do so. He must do so, because in his opinion and for purposes of this thread this "rogue's" writings are the foundation for the Church's teachings on the Eucharist. So in essence he is agreeing with the Church that Saint Paul actually taught this, but rejecting the teaching as coming from man - in this case as pushed by Saint Paul himself. So while this poster accepts that Saint Paul teaches the Eucharist, he rejects the Apostles teachings entirely as man centered and even rejects the Saint as a "true" Apostle.

So it is this notion that something was off about Saint Paul's teachings (whether slightly or in the minds of some totally "rogue") and also in the extreme with challenging his claim of being an Apostle. It is this tarnishing of Saint Paul which I have maintained has it's roots in the reformation. Am certainly no doctor of theology but a simple google search points to late 15th and early 16th century figures in theology that either were part of or joined in the Reformation movement who first fostered these ideas about Saint Paul.
And the whole idea also makes for a rather easy target (since he wrote the most, 2/3 of NT) to blame which ever part of the Church's teachings one wanted to reject as "teachings of men" on an overzealous first century evangelist beginning what would become "those teachings" to be rejected. The same google search will show this opinion thankfully loosing favor among theologians - but certainly not posters here (and I certainly do not mean you).
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is that supposed to counteract you having said "1500 years after?"
No, it was suppose to highlight that saying something had roots ONLY about 500 years ago is relatively modern when compared to nearly 2000 years of Church history. But I see now every response will get some sort of imagined objection, so appears my earlier assessment about my faith was spot on.

Were any of the preceding replies to my posts suppose to refute the idea I had expressed that this dismissal of Saint Paul (whether slight or complete) has its roots in the Reformation or refute that my saying that means it is a relatively modern thought or refute that such an origin in the Reformation could properly be said to be about 500 years ago or conversely about 1500 years after the beginnings of the Church or demonstrate that my correctly referencing that origin is me wrongly imputing that incorrect attitude about Saint Paul to every Protestant faith or to any particular Reformer?
Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, it was suppose to highlight that saying something had roots ONLY about 500 years ago is relatively modern when compared to nearly 2000 years of Church history.
Yes, that was my assumption. Problem is that it doesn't do a thing to counteract what you wrote before. In fact, you won't even acknowledge having written what I referred to. ;)
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, that was my assumption. Problem is that it doesn't do a thing to counteract what you wrote before. In fact, you won't even acknowledge having written what I referred to. ;)
Let me ask another way.

Do you mean to say that the Reformation had nothing to do with addressing justification and therefore could not be said to be the root of the thoughts arising which leads someone here in this threat to say Saint Paul as THEY (not me or the Church) understand Saint Paul in his numerous letters to be supporting the Eucharist teaching is proof to THEM (not me or the Church or YOU or the Reformers or any specific leader of the Reformation) that this Saint went rogue?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Let me ask another way.

Do you mean to say that the Reformation had nothing to do with addressing justification and therefore could not be said to be the root of the thoughts arising which leads someone here in this threat to say Saint Paul as THEY (not me or the Church) understand Saint Paul in his numerous letters to be supporting the Eucharist teaching is proof to THEM (not me or the Church or YOU or the Reformers or any specific leader of the Reformation) that this Saint went rogue?

Let's stop messing around with this, Doctor. The point was simple. You opposed the idea (and I also opposed the idea) of that revisionist history about St. Paul. But you said that the idea was attributable to "1500 years after" -- which means the Protestant Reformation. You tried to talk around that in later posts when I brought it up, but that wording does NOT refer to a different time in Church history than what you clearly said in the first place.

And here's the deal with that. You are wrong to attribute such a notion to the Protestant Reformation--Luther, Calvin, et al. It is contrary to what those people believed. It's a development of later times. And it's not associated with any significant segment of Christianity.

That said, if you want to argue that "If there had not been a Reformation, there wouldn't been this later renunciation of Reformation beliefs," you might as well argue that if there had not been a Medieval Papal church, there wouldn't have been a Reformation, either!

If you don't want to acknowledge any of this, then I'll just let it go. It was never expected by me to become some "do or die" debate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
t
Let's stop messing around with this, Doctor. The point was simple. You opposed the idea (and I also opposed the idea) of that revisionist history about St. Paul. But you said that the idea was attributable to "1500 years after" -- which means the Protestant Reformation. You tried to talk around that in later posts when I brought it up, but that wording does NOT refer to a different time in Church history than what you clearly said in the first place.

And here's the deal with that. You are wrong to attribute such a notion to the Protestant Reformation--Luther, Calvin, et al. It is contrary to what those people believed. It's a development of later times. And it's not associated with any significant segment of Christianity.

That said, if you want to argue that "If there had not been a Reformation, there wouldn't been this later renunciation of Reformation beliefs," you might as well argue that if there had not been a Medieval Papal church, there wouldn't have been a Reformation, either!

If you don't want to acknowledge any of this, then I'll just let it go. It was never expected by me to become some "do or die" debate.
As this is a response to my last question, then am I to understand your position is that none of the Reformers including Luther, Calvin...etc, had any issues with the Church's teaching on/understanding of justification?
Have never come across that claim and it would be an odd claim to make, as must folks (right or wrong) credit Luther alone with "faith alone".

I don't feel the need to acknowledge an error I did not make or agree with your continued gross misrepresentation of what I said. The only reason anyone could have to attack that Apostle's teachings/letters and the Apostle himself, at least as it relates to this thread, is to undermine the Church's expressed and long held meaning of justification as supported by those same letters. It makes absolutely no sense to try to understand someone speak of any Sacrament without first knowing what they mean by justification. So the Church's teachings on the Eucharist and Justification MUST go hand in hand and Saint Paul certainly seen as the greatest evangelical among the Apostles supporting those teachings. The comment you keep going on about was made to a poster who happens to agree with the Church (and me obviously) that the Apostle Paul supported those teachings on both justification and the Eucharist - which is also why that same poster claims Saint Paul was not even a real Apostle and went "rogue". Saying that about an Apostle is one way to dismiss the Church's view of justification.

That poster has to attack Saint Paul given that he gets Saint Paul is saying exactly what the Church says the Apostles says about jsutification/Eucharist. So, in order to claim the Church is wrong on the underlying teachings on justification and also by that certainly the Eucharist; Saint Paul MUST be discredited. Without a reformation declaring the Church wrong on justification, there is no need for anyone to go there with Saint Paul. To deny that connection - root in the reformation - is to fail to understand both the fundamentals of/behind the teaching on the Eucharist and reformation history itself.

No one who understands Saint Paul's letters that way (as that poster, the Church and I do) needs to go there unless they have issue with the underlying teaching of justification which supports the Church's teaching on the Eucharist. So this attack on this Apostle is driven by a need to attack the Church's teaching on justification, making that need the origin of such thoughts on Saint Paul. Your apparent denial aside, the root/cause/need for such an attack on Saint Paul is an attack on the Church's view of justification which is properly, correctly, accurately tied to the movement of ALL the reformers. That is true regardless of the innumerable, varied and contradicting positions people have since taken from the roots of that movement. Saying that is so IS NOT saying ANY particular reformer holds this particular view of Saint Paul. Obviously they could not hold the Church's understanding of Saint Paul and also disagree with the Church's position on justification. But that does NOT mean, instead of totally trashing the Apostle as some here do, the reformers could and indeed did understand Saint Paul differently than the Church. They had to or else reject him entirely as some later would/did. Both sets of people are coming to their positions for the same reason - to hold/defend a view of justification opposing the Church's view - which is a root all protesters share and all did/do to varying degree.

If there were a need to get more specific - and there is not - these particular ideas about discrediting Saint Paul we could perhaps guess these thoughts originate a couple hundred years later (after the reformation) in a German university - but the only reason those ideas need arise is a need to attempt to address any conflict one sees between one's understanding of that Apostle's letters and one's beliefs on justification, which is a conflict that only arises out of/from the reformation. So the roots of those thoughts on Saint Paul are still correctly laid on the Reformation. Also exactly the conflict/thoughts held by the poster that my original reply was to before you inserted yourself.

And again, since this has been my constant stance to you against your false claim of my unfairly lumping all Protestants into some united set of beliefs regarding whatever you wrongly think I think they practice as communion and now claiming I said all Protestants diss that Apostle; I can only say you are wrong about my posts, my meaning and my intent. I never once said that and your labor to claim otherwise appears to me to be motivated here by something else (besides perhaps wanting to rewrite reformation history on justification). Consider too that apparently no one else here took my remarks to that other poster the way you have.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0