Do some people take it too far? Eucharist

[Not David]

I agree. Far be it from me to limit God to being a piece of bread and a sip of wine inside an ornate building.

Glad to see you using Muslim arguments, what's next God being man is nonsense since he got tired and needed to sleep?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Glad to see you using Muslim arguments, what's next God being man is nonsense since he got tired and needed to sleep?

Hey! I was just agreeing with you.

 

[HTacianas]

I just want to say that I have a great respect and admiration for the Catholic Church and the writings of the early church fathers, I just think they were wrong on this particular matter. No offense intended.

Neither the Church Fathers nor the Catholic Church are wrong about it. It was not them that established it. It was not some interpretation of scripture or any of the sort. It was established by Jesus Christ and handed down by the apostles.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Christ. I don't see any shame in it. Some will go as far to say we are bringing shame to God for thinking it is his body and blood.

Jesus did not say it was symbolic. Are they adding to the word?

Absolutely.

 

[childeye 2]

Absolutely.

What some people are meaning when they say the bread is 'symbolic' of his body/flesh, is that his body is not made out of bread. It's a ridiculous argument to assert that the statement "Jesus' body was not made out of bread" is adding to scripture, since such an assertion implies that if indeed Jesus' body was not made out of bread, he would have explained this to his apostles, therefore his body was made out of bread.

 

[Albion]

So you are appealing to mystery?
Jesus didn't say it's a spirit body. He said " This is my body."
Either it's symbolic or it's literally his body. I don't see any other options.

It can be his body in a spiritual, metaphysical/supernatural sense.

That it might instead be literally bread...or at the other extreme, that it is not his body in any sense but simply represents his body...

make a mockery of Christ's chosen words. Either way.

So neither of those two POVs is persuasive.

 

[childeye 2]

It can be his body in a spiritual, metaphysical/supernatural sense.

He sacrificed his real flesh body and bled out his real blood. But we eat and drink him spiritually as food for the soul, so it is literally his flesh and blood that we eat and drink in memory of his sacrifice for us.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes, think of the millions who have taken communion then walked away from the faith. This verse is actually about partaking of Christ through faith.

There's the parable of the sower. Some never hear, some hear and fall away, others get caught up in the cares of the world.

Historically, John 6 has been seen as John's reference to the Eucharist by some, not all, church fathers.

 

[Albion]

He sacrificed his real flesh body and bled out his real blood. But we eat and drink him spiritually as food for the soul, so it is literally his flesh and blood that we eat and drink in memory of his sacrifice for us.

...but not in a literal, carnal, sense.

Of course, the sacrament does also remind us of his sacrifice, but that would be true irrespective of which of these interpretations we accept.

 

[renniks]

It can be his body in a spiritual, metaphysical/supernatural sense.

That it might instead be literally bread...or at the other extreme, that it is not his body in any sense but simply represents his body...

make a mockery of Christ's chosen words. Either way.

So neither of those two POVs is persuasive.

I don't see why. Jesus said he's a gate. Not that he represents a gate. So he's either literally made of wood and iron or it's symbolic.

 

[Albion]

I don't see why. Jesus said he's a gate. Not that he represents a gate. So he's either literally made of wood and iron or it's symbolic.

Sure, that is what some people who think the sacrament is really only representational or not a sacrament at all like to say. However, the comparison is not apt.

Those analogies you have in mind are quick and common expressions, easily recognized as such. But the statements made by Our Lord to his Apostles at the Last Supper are not of that kind. Rather, he spells out his surprising information to them, reiterates it and expands upon it, and also gives the meaning behind his instructions to them to eat and drink of it, "as oft" as they do it, and what his sacrifice accomplishes, how the sacred meal commemorates that sacrifice, and so on. What's more this is reasserted and enlarged upon elsewhere in the New Testament.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Neither the Church Fathers nor the Catholic Church are wrong about it. It was not them that established it. It was not some interpretation of scripture or any of the sort. It was established by Jesus Christ and handed down by the apostles.

I politely disagree, sure Jesus did establish the Eucharist that’s not the question here, the question here is was He speaking literally about it being His body and His blood or was He speaking metaphorically? I believe He was speaking metaphorically since His statement in John 6:51 cannot be taken literally because Judas received the Eucharist from Jesus Himself and he will not receive eternal life.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:51‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Albion]

I politely disagree, sure Jesus did establish the Eucharist that’s not the question here, the question here is was He speaking literally about it being His body and His blood or was He speaking metaphorically? I believe He was speaking metaphorically since His statement in John 6:51 cannot be taken literally because Judas received the Eucharist from Jesus Himself and he will not receive eternal life.

This is another case of taking a statement that is universally understood and making it be a legal, binding, technical, guarantee.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:51‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

"If anyone," is not a universal guarantee. And it's not that someone who for any reason doesn't get to receive Holy Communion has no chance. Not any more than when the Bible speaks of "the world" it doesn't mean every last person who ever lived on the planet or every last inch of territory. That should be obvious.

Or when we say "Everybody knows...." Yes, we realize, and so does the hearer, that someone, somewhere, might not know.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is another case of taking a statement that is universally understood and making it be a legal, binding, technical, guarantee.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:51‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

"If anyone," is not a guarantee. Not any more than when the Bible speaks of "the world" and doesn't mean every last person who ever lived on the planet or every last inch of territory, or when we say "Everybody knows...." Yes, we know and so does the hearer that someone, somewhere, might not know.

Ok but the question is was He speaking literally? Here’s another clear indication.

“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:35‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Anyone ever been hungry or thirsty after receiving the Eucharist? Obviously He was speaking metaphorically. This isn’t the first time He told someone they would never be thirsty. He said the same thing about the water He gives to the Samaritan woman in John 4. He also said that His food is doing the will of The Father which is what I believe He was referring to the entire time in John 6.

 

[Albion]

Ok but the question is was He speaking literally? Here’s another clear indication.

“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:35‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Anyone ever been hungry or thirsty after receiving the Eucharist? Obviously He was speaking metaphorically. This isn’t the first time He told someone they would never be thirsty. He said the same thing about the water He gives to the Samaritan woman in John 4. He also said that His food is doing the will of The Father which is what I believe He was referring to the entire time in John 6.

This is an argument without end, but the evidence FROM THE WORDS OF CHRIST SPOKEN WHEN HE INSTITUTED THE SACRED MEAL is strongly to the effect that he meant more than just a plain one-word comparison. I explained this earlier.

I would also call your attention to the fact that this was not another "I am ____" analogy, but here he defined the item itself. I don't recall him ever redefining the meaning of a door, for instance, or a gate.

And then there is the belief of the early church--which ought to be worth something--that the sacrament involves the "Real Presence" of Christ, which has also been defined and explained many times on these forums.

So in sum, any of the three or four views concerning the nature of the Lord's Supper might be the correct one, but the evidence runs strongly in the direction of one of them, like it or not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is an argument without end, but the evidence FROM THE WORDS OF CHRIST SPOKEN WHEN HE INSTITUTED THE SACRED MEAL is strongly to the effect that he meant more than just a plain one-word comparison. I explained this earlier.

I would also call your attention to the fact that this was not another "I am ____" analogy, but here he defined the item itself. I don't recall him ever redefining the meaning of a door, for instance, or a gate.

And then there is the belief of the early church--which ought to be worth something--that the sacrament involves the "Real Presence" of Christ, which has also been defined and explained many times on these forums.

So in sum, any of the three or four views concerning the nature of the Lord's Supper might be the correct one, but the evidence runs strongly in the direction of one of them, like it or not.

One thing that all Christians seem to be in agreement on is that it is done "in remembrance" of Him and that is the memorial aspect. The metaphysical aspect is, unfortunately, a point of contention. The actual, literal physical aspect is only held by a small minority at this time with none being willing to subject the consecrated bread and wine to scientific examination for human DNA.

 

[childeye 2]

...but not in a literal, carnal, sense.

Right, not cannibalism.

Of course, the sacrament does also remind us of his sacrifice, but that would be true irrespective of which of these interpretations we accept.

The carnal interpretation can obscure the spiritual one. The belief that eternal life is obtained in biting and swallowing the bread and wine turned flesh and blood can very well obscure the interpretation that eternal life is obtained in eating his Spirit that partook of flesh and blood, through which we pick up our own cross and we live in him and he in us. I know people who have said they're losing faith that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood, as if that's what mattered in being a member of Christ.

People actually fought over who had the power to change the bread and wine into flesh and blood, and the authority to hand out eternal life, and which congregation was the true body.

I believe there is judgment at the cup concerning our reverence of his sacrifice. I believe that the communion of Christ is eating the sacrifice of his flesh and blood, and the intense suffering which he endured at the hands of wicked men, and moreover, the immutable integrity of His Love, making intercession for his crucifiers in all purity of heart. In remembrance, I'm eating the heart and mind of Christ, the Eternal and Holy Spirit that has come down into a wicked world and was raised from the dead, to the destruction of the kingdom of darkness, filled with the prisoners of Satan held captive in a false imagery of god.

 

[Albion]

One thing that all Christians seem to be in agreement on is that it is done "in remembrance" of Him and that is the memorial aspect. The metaphysical aspect is, unfortunately, a point of contention. The actual, literal physical aspect is only held by a small minority at this time with none being willing to subject the consecrated bread and wine to scientific examination for human DNA.

I expect that that's been done at some time or other, but nothing is resolved by it because the doctrine of Transubstantiation comes with its own explanation for why any such an examination shows bread to be bread, etc.

 

[The Liturgist]

It can be his body in a spiritual, metaphysical/supernatural sense.

That it might instead be literally bread...or at the other extreme, that it is not his body in any sense but simply represents his body...

make a mockery of Christ's chosen words. Either way.

So neither of those two POVs is persuasive.

The oldest liturgical texts we have are the Anaphora of St. Mark (also known as St. Cyril) and the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, and the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, and, assuming the recent scholarship suggesting that the Anaphora of St. James is a derivative of those attributed St. Basil and not a precursor, the Anaphora of Hippolytus (which has seen continual use in the Ethiopian church), and all but Hippolytus have an extremely strong Epiklesis suggesting a belief in the physical presence. And I don’t think Martin Luther, or the various Orthodox and Catholic and indeed high church Anglo Catholic theologians (such as Edward Pusey and Dom Gregory Dix) had it in mind to make a mockery of Christ’s chosen words. Also I should add, at least one proto-Moravian group, the Utraquists, and in all probability, the Non Juring Scottish and North English Episcopalians, with their insertion of the Epiklesis from St. James into the Anglican Communion Service, and their deletion of the so-called “black rubric” which was absent from the 1549 and 1560 editions but present in the 1552 and 1662 editions, believed in a physical presence.

 

[HTacianas]

I politely disagree, sure Jesus did establish the Eucharist that’s not the question here, the question here is was He speaking literally about it being His body and His blood or was He speaking metaphorically? I believe He was speaking metaphorically since His statement in John 6:51 cannot be taken literally because Judas received the Eucharist from Jesus Himself and he will not receive eternal life.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:51‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

There are a lot of people who participate in the Eucharist that will not receive eternal life.

Mat 24:13 “But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Rom 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.