Eucharist Elements

[RandyPNW]

On another forum I addressed a perennial problem with interpreting the Eucharistic elements, as either symbolic or literal transformation from bread and wine to body and blood. I come out on the "symbolic" side of this. We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle" in the Scriptures? I answered as follows...

I agree that a miracle is not predictable by human formula, but only by the revealed word of God. For example, Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples to go out an work miracles for 3.5 years. This was somewhat routine, but was not a formula anybody could pick up and do. Nor was it something that even the 12 Disciples could do following Jersus' death. God's Word commissioned them to work miracles during the earthly ministry of Christ to confirm who he was.

To be clear I'm not a dispensationalist with respect to the idea that miracles ceased with the termination of the 1st generation of apostles and prophets. I believe miracles continue today--again, not by formula, but by revelation of God's word. How and when they occur is subject to God and to the specifics of how He commissions certain individuals to work miracles.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

The attempt to make this more mystical is really an attempt to preserve the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist so that when it is practiced it is done with a real sense that we participate in Christ. But we do this all the time, and not just during the Eucharist/Communion. We walk every day in Christ, and not just experience this in the ritual of Communion.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

 

[Clare73]

On another forum I addressed a perennial problem with interpreting the Eucharistic elements, as either symbolic or literal transformation from bread and wine to body and blood. I come out on the "symbolic" side of this. We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle" in the Scriptures? I answered as follows...

Does the Catholic church not come out on the literal transformation side?

I agree that a miracle is not predictable by human formula, but only by the revealed word of God. For example, Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples to go out an work miracles for 3.5 years. This was somewhat routine, but was not a formula anybody could pick up and do. Nor was it something that even the 12 Disciples could do following Jersus' death. God's Word commissioned them to work miracles during the earthly ministry of Christ to confirm who he was.

To be clear I'm not a dispensationalist with respect to the idea that miracles ceased with the termination of the 1st generation of apostles and prophets. I believe miracles continue today--again, not by formula, but by revelation of God's word. How and when they occur is subject to God and to the specifics of how He commissions certain individuals to work miracles.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

The attempt to make this more mystical is really an attempt to preserve the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist so that when it is practiced it is done with a real sense that we participate in Christ. But we do this all the time, and not just during the Eucharist/Communion. We walk every day in Christ, and not just experience this in the ritual of Communion.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

 

[RandyPNW]

Does the Catholic church not come out on the literal transformation side?

Yes, unfortunately. My own Lutheran upbringing, Consubstiation, yields a similar product, which again I think is unfortunate. Just because I side with the "symbolic" interpreters does not mean I side with their various denominations in all respects, nor does it mean I'm against all that Catholics and Lutherans believe.

And I certainly am not opposed to reading the Bible literally where the context warrants it. As I said, this is just a matter of reading "figures of speech" and literary conventions when they are recognizable. This is a unique historical subject, and can be better explained in our day, rather than in older times when the tools of hermeneutics were not so readily available.

The problem becomes, I think, when we turn traditions and historical interpretations into "idols" that we refuse to review or treat in a new light. Then reformations become impossible, and religious divisions will inevitably follow. In this case, I'm not sure a difference of opinion on this subject necessitates religious division, although the theological ramifications are, I think, important.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore continuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

The part I bolded does not make much sense. Are you then saying there is no "mechanism"?

If course I would agree, as a Catholic, that "mechanism" is a very poor choice of words.

Rather
The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131).

A sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

 

[Clare73]

The part I bolded does not make much sense. Are you then saying there is no "mechanism"?
If course I would agree, as a Catholic, that "mechanism" is a very poor choice of words.
Rather
The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131).
A sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

I suspect this notion of "sacramental presence," a private notion of man nowhere found in the NT, is an attempt to duplicate the OT sacrifice, which sacrifice was actually eaten in a communion meal (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8).

 

[childeye 2]

On another forum I addressed a perennial problem with interpreting the Eucharistic elements, as either symbolic or literal transformation from bread and wine to body and blood. I come out on the "symbolic" side of this. We were asked if Transubstantiation is meant to infer a typical "miracle" in the Scriptures? I answered as follows...

I agree that a miracle is not predictable by human formula, but only by the revealed word of God. For example, Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples to go out an work miracles for 3.5 years. This was somewhat routine, but was not a formula anybody could pick up and do. Nor was it something that even the 12 Disciples could do following Jersus' death. God's Word commissioned them to work miracles during the earthly ministry of Christ to confirm who he was.

To be clear I'm not a dispensationalist with respect to the idea that miracles ceased with the termination of the 1st generation of apostles and prophets. I believe miracles continue today--again, not by formula, but by revelation of God's word. How and when they occur is subject to God and to the specifics of how He commissions certain individuals to work miracles.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

The attempt to make this more mystical is really an attempt to preserve the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist so that when it is practiced it is done with a real sense that we participate in Christ. But we do this all the time, and not just during the Eucharist/Communion. We walk every day in Christ, and not just experience this in the ritual of Communion.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

For what it's worth, when I read John 6, Jesus seems intent on getting rid of a crowd of unwanted followers. I'm saying, it's my opinion that Jesus intentionally conveyed the notion of cannibalism knowing it would offend the crowd of whom he had said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled".

Looking back at it, I think it's safe to say that Jesus was not actually referring to cannibalism, but to the future sacrifice of his self on the cross, where through great suffering he would sacrifice his own flesh and blood in a display of the incorruptible Love. When believed upon as God's True Image, this knowledge transforms an individual inwardly.

So, it seems to me, that just as the Gospel of Christ crucified is a revelation so as to be believed upon and be saved; the memory of that event is upheld in the utmost reverence, there acknowledging a precious Love enduring horrific suffering for our sakes, and so that our sins may be forgiven. Therefore, it qualifies as efficacious to all souls when partaking in a worthy manner of his real flesh/blood on the cross, having become bread/wine in the Eucharist/Thanksgiving.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I suspect this notion of "sacramental presence," a private notion of man nowhere found in the NT, is an attempt to duplicate the OT sacrifice, which sacrifice was actually eaten in a communion meal (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8).

What about

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

and

1 Corinthians 11: 27 - 29 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

for starters? No notion of sacramental presence??? Private notion?

 

[Clare73]

What about

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Participation in the benefits of the sacrifice of the body and blood.

and

1 Corinthians 11: 27 - 29 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

I can sin against Christ without ever being physically near him and also participate in the benefits of his sacrifice through faith without ever being physically near it.

for starters? No notion of sacramental presence??? Private notion?

Where do we find "sacramental presence" in the NT?

Where do we find "sacrament" in the Greek text? The word is musterion (Lating: mysterium) which in English is mystery.
By what authority did Jerome change the Latin mysterium to sacramentum?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Where do we find "sacramental presence" in the NT?

Can't you recognize the concept without verbatim?

 

[Clare73]

Can't you recognize the concept without verbatim?

Nice device for extra- and contra-Biblical doctrine.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Nice device for extra- and contra-Biblical doctrine.

Matthew 26:26-28
“Take and eat; this is My body.” / Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. / This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

does not seem to be verbatim enough and it is the non Catholics who conceptualize something extra- and contra-Biblical. Where does Jesus say, "This is symbolic of me"?

 

[RandyPNW]

The part I bolded does not make much sense. Are you then saying there is no "mechanism"?

If course I would agree, as a Catholic, that "mechanism" is a very poor choice of words.

Rather
The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131).

A sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Yes, brother--I mean no offense to you as a member of the Catholic Church. I believe we need to investigate for ourselves, and not just sign on to everything our denomination holds to. I'm a member of the Assemblies of God, and most certainly do not agree with everything that denomination subscribes to.

"Mechanism" is exactly the word I wished to use because it conveys the idea that spirituality and Salvation itself is being channelled through a sacrament. That is, the sacrament is itself indispensable in providing this spirituality and benefit.

I subscribe to the biblical teaching that we are *always* to walk in the Spirit, not needing any special sacrament to provide what we already have in Christ. The usefulness of the sacrament of the Eucharist is it's ability to *remind* us of our foundational Christian truths. We do need reminders!

Similarly, Water Baptism, as a sacrament, is not necessary for our spirituality and Salvation. But it is *useful* in order to begin our walk with Christ as a public airing of what we believe and as a demonstration of our sincerity in taking on the things that Baptism symbolizes, namely our death to Self and New Life in Christ.

We are washed clean by the redeeming work of Christ, and we begin that life at our initial confession--well before we are publicly baptized in water. So sacraments are useful and recommended by Christ. But it is his own work alone that has redeemed us, and has provided everything we need for our Christian life and spirituality. My opinion only....

 

[jas3]

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement.

How are we immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes, brother--I mean no offense to you as a member of the Catholic Church. I believe we need to investigate for ourselves, and not just sign on to everything our denomination holds to. I'm a member of the Assemblies of God, and most certainly do not agree with everything that denomination subscribes to.

"Mechanism" is exactly the word I wished to use because it conveys the idea that spirituality and Salvation itself is being channelled through a sacrament. That is, the sacrament is itself indispensable in providing this spirituality and benefit.

I subscribe to the biblical teaching that we are *always* to walk in the Spirit, not needing any special sacrament to provide what we already have in Christ. The usefulness of the sacrament of the Eucharist is it's ability to *remind* us of our foundational Christian truths. We do need reminders!

Similarly, Water Baptism, as a sacrament, is not necessary for our spirituality and Salvation. But it is *useful* in order to begin our walk with Christ as a public airing of what we believe and as a demonstration of our sincerity in taking on the things that Baptism symbolizes, namely our death to Self and New Life in Christ.

We are washed clean by the redeeming work of Christ, and we begin that life at our initial confession--well before we are publicly baptized in water. So sacraments are useful and recommended by Christ. But it is his own work alone that has redeemed us, and has provided everything we need for our Christian life and spirituality. My opinion only....

We are not far apart but when you say "useful" do you not also mean efficacious?

 

[RandyPNW]

For what it's worth, when I read John 6, Jesus seems intent on getting rid of a crowd of unwanted followers. I'm saying, it's my opinion that Jesus intentionally conveyed the notion of cannibalism knowing it would offend the crowd of whom he had said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled".

Looking back at it, I think it's safe to say that Jesus was not actually referring to cannibalism, but to the future sacrifice of his self on the cross, where through great suffering he would sacrifice his own flesh and blood in a display of the incorruptible Love. When believed upon as God's True Image, this knowledge transforms an individual inwardly.

So, it seems to me, that just as the Gospel of Christ crucified is a revelation so as to be believed upon and be saved; the memory of that event is upheld in the utmost reverence, there acknowledging a precious Love enduring horrific suffering for our sakes, and so that our sins may be forgiven. Therefore, it qualifies as efficacious to all souls when partaking in a worthy manner of his real flesh/blood on the cross, having become bread/wine in the Eucharist/Thanksgiving.

For what it's worth, when I read John 6, Jesus seems intent on getting rid of a crowd of unwanted followers. I'm saying, it's my opinion that Jesus intentionally conveyed the notion of cannibalism knowing it would offend the crowd of whom he had said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled".

Looking back at it, I think it's safe to say that Jesus was not actually referring to cannibalism, but to the future sacrifice of his self on the cross, where through great suffering he would sacrifice his own flesh and blood in a display of the incorruptible Love. When believed upon as God's True Image, this knowledge transforms an individual inwardly.

So, it seems to me, that just as the Gospel of Christ crucified is a revelation so as to be believed upon and be saved; the memory of that event is upheld in the utmost reverence, there acknowledging a precious Love enduring horrific suffering for our sakes, and so that our sins may be forgiven. Therefore, it qualifies as efficacious to all souls when partaking in a worthy manner of his real flesh/blood on the cross, having become bread/wine in the Eucharist/Thanksgiving.

Well, for sure Jesus was not promoting "cannibalism!" So we are only talking about a supposed mystical transformation of the elements into flesh and blood without it taking place in an ultra-literal way. Either way you look at it, the elements are being viewed as Christ's body and blood, whether in a mystical way or in a symbolic way.

So it comes down to whether you think the sacrament of the Eucharist is a necessary channel for God's grace or simply a necessary reminder of God's grace. I think the latter, respectfully.

Those who think one must see grace dispensed through the Eucharist must face the reality that only Christ's death on the Cross--past tense, brought about our forgiveness and New Birth. This would challenge the notion that any necessary grace must be dispensed through sacraments like the Eucharist.

That said, I'm fully on board practicing the Eucharist regularly, in whatever way a denomination sees fit to properly portray Jesus' body and blood...assuming it is food, of course.

 

[RandyPNW]

How are we immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech?

How are we immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech?

Those who hold to a mystical view of the Eucharist, or Transubstantiation, will not agree that calling the elements of bread and wine something else is symbolic. I think it is self-evident personally. It would be like calling a tree a "human being." It is obviously not a literal statement.

 

[RandyPNW]

We are not far apart but when you say "useful" do you not also mean efficacious?

If it is "useful," yes, it is certainly "efficacious!" Thank you!

 

[Clare73]

Matthew 26:26-28
“Take and eat; this is My body.” / Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. / This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

does not seem to be verbatim enough and it is the non Catholics who conceptualize something extra- and contra-Biblical.
Where does Jesus say, "This is symbolic of me"?

The same place that it says "I am the door" and "I am the vine."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The same place that it says "I am the door" and "I am the vine."

John 6: 60 On hearing it, many of His disciples said, “This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?”…“Does this offend you?…

 

[Clare73]

John 6: 60 On hearing it, many of His disciples said, “This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?”…“Does this offend you?…

Not knowing he was speaking figuratively because his own body was about to become an OT sacrifice,
which they would figuratively consume as they actually consumed some OT animal sacrifices,
both consumptions, actually and figuratively, for the same purpose: to participate in the benefits of the sacrifice.