Literal flesh and blood?

[AmusingMargaret]

[Staff edit]

I think the bigger problem is how deeply entrenched we can get in traditions.

Paul said (1 Cor 10:17)
For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.

For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, and have all been made to drink into one spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

We become one bread and one body THROUGH THE SPIRIT. We become partakers of that one bread by worshipping God in spirit and in truth, by effectual prayer, by obedience.

If you believe you must eat a piece of bread, you should do it. But I believe Paul was not speaking of literal bread/wine/juice, but of spiritual fellowship; therefore, I do not.

 

[zoidar]

If you believe you must eat a piece of bread, you should do it. But I believe Paul was not speaking of literal bread/wine/juice, but of spiritual fellowship; therefore, I do not.

It's not about must do, it's about wanting to do what the apostles and the early church did.

 

[AmusingMargaret]

It's not about must do, it's about wanting to do what the apostles and the early church did.

I believe I am doing what they did.

Thank you for responding. I am perfectly okay with you believing differently than me, and I hope you have a good day.

 

[Hank77]

The Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-29)

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

I have heard many say it is about examining yourself as to sin before receiving the Lord's Supper. But I believe it is saying that we should be examining how we are judging His body in the right manner. Not lightly or recklessly but with full respect, honor, and gratitude with sincerity of heart.

I think some people think that when a Protestant say it is a remembrance of Him, it can be compared to 'I remember the day I went fishing with my Grandpa", it isn't like that kind of remembering at ALL.
And just like the Jews say Passover is more than just remembering. How can we partake of the Lord's Supper, remember His grace given towards us and not be moved to bestow His grace on others. Remember the commandments He has given to us to love and care for others as He has done for us. Remember to share His Gospel of grace and love.
He IS present for ....
Mat 18:20 for where there are two or three gathered together--to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

 

[Basil Isaacks]

... I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

One of the things the Roman pagans accused the early Christians of doing was committing cannibalism.

[Staff edit]

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

 

[thecolorsblend]

[Staff edit]

But the Church has always taught that Our Lord's sacrifice is transcendental. And it seems likely (to me, if nobody else) that the artist Salvador Dali understood that when he painted Corpus Hypercubus wherein Our Lord is crucified on a tesseract, a four dimensional hypercube, rather than a conventional cross.

The reason I mention Dali is because that painting is a pretty good visual representation of the 4D nature of the crucifixion. Seeing things sometimes helps with understanding the concept. Being crucified upon a a 4-dimensional hypercube illustrates Our Lord's mastery even over the space-time continuum.

The perfection of Our Lord's sacrifice is 4D in nature. It spans all of time. His sacrifice isn't effectual only in relation to a fixed point in history. And so you see then that the Catholic understanding of the crucifixion (and I assume this applies to the rest of traditional Christianity but could be wrong) isn't that the crucifixion happens "again" in every Mass. It happened once, is happening once and will happen once. It is a 4D sacrifice.

I'll go out on a limb and say that in order to be truly perfect, Our Lord's sacrifice necessarily must be transcendental in nature. It is living, active, and past, present and future.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The church of my childhood went by Luke 22:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

It can be helpful to read the various parallel passages about the institution of the Lord's Supper. As well as the Luke 22 passage you mention, there is Matthew 26, Mark 14 and 1 Corinthians 11. I think it's always a good idea to read one of these passages before partaking in the Lord's Supper.

The emphasis seems strongly to be on the representational aspect of the emblems.

 

[Thursday]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

The early Christians found it disturbing as well, and many of them left the faith due to the Eucharist.


"This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?"

 

[Hank77]

[Staff edit]

I think we could say that His one time sacrifice was/is effectual in the past, present, and future.

 

[hedrick]

I’m not sure anyone has actually answered the OP: Why does it matter that it’s Christ’s actual body and blood?

I actually take the Words of Institution metaphorically. I don’t think the bread and wine are exactly Christ’s body and blood. But I think when we eat them we share in Christ’s body and blood, per 1 Cor 10.

Christ came to be with us, including experiencing death, physically, not just spiritually or metaphorically. Hence when we share in him we are sharing in a person with a body whose blood was given for us.

If we were purely spiritual beings, we might not need sacraments. But we are physical beings. To involve our whole person, God gave us sacraments that involve us physically.

 

[JacksBratt]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

This has been argued ad nauseum.

Really, what do you think. When the communion service is over, the servers have a bunch of pieces of Jesus' body left on a plate and a bunch of cups of His blood left over.....??? Or, the priest has bag or container of flat wafers of Jesus' flesh left over and a chalice of His blood??? Really?

When they were at the last supper,

Matthew 26:26-28King James Version (KJV)

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.


27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;


28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

He stated, at this time even, "which is shed for many" but it had not even happened yet.

While Jesus held up the bread and broke it and blessed the wine, it did not become His flesh. He did not indwell it. The wine did not turn into blood....

People, these are emblems, symbols, they represent the body and shed blood of Christ. It is a method of association of what Christ did for us.


Ever make a plan in a game of some sort? You all get down on the ground and someone will say "OK, here's the plan... Freddy, this pebble is you, you stay here till I give the signal.. Bobby, this bottle cap, that's you, you run toward this stick which is that ditch by the Henderson House.... Tom, you're this broken piece of glass, you go to the Johnson garage and cut them off there.....

Ever done that??? Is the pebble really Freddy, Bobby becomes part of the bottle cap and the broken glass is somehow, Tom?


Of course not.

 

[BubbaJack]

This has been argued ad nauseum.

Most things regarding theology have. I'm genuinely interested in this, but if your answer to my query begins with snark and dismissiveness, I won't bother reading the rest of your post. Thanks anyway.

 

[BubbaJack]

I’m not sure anyone has actually answered the OP: Why does it matter that it’s Christ’s actual body and blood?

I actually take the Words of Institution metaphorically. I don’t think the bread and wine are exactly Christ’s body and blood. But I think when we eat them we share in Christ’s body and blood, per 1 Cor 10.

Christ came to be with us, including experiencing death, physically, not just spiritually or metaphorically. Hence when we share in him we are sharing in a person with a body whose blood was given for us.

If we were purely spiritual beings, we might not need sacraments. But we are physical beings. To involve our whole person, God gave us sacraments that involve us physically.

Would you say your view is close to that of Lutherans?

 

[BubbaJack]

Traditional Christian theology would assert that our salvation is the work of God to rescue us, redeem us, etc; and He does this by bringing us into and uniting us with Christ--Christ who died, Christ who is risen, and Christ who is coming again. Thus salvation is not merely some contractual decree, it is about taking a world of sinners, bringing it into the Person and work of Jesus, and in Him it being healed, renewed, and restored--ultimately and fully on the Last Day at His return in glory, at the resurrection of all the dead, and the everlasting life of the future good world "A new heavens and a new earth", what we call the Age to Come.

A mere memorial meal may have a subjective meaning or a sentimentality; but the Eucharist is more than sentimentality, it is a living encounter and participation in the death, resurrection, and life of the Crucified, Risen, and Glorified Christ in Who alone is found our salvation--our salvation which He caused at Calvary by His dying for our sin, our salvation which He caused by His rising from the dead and defeating death, our salvation which is ours now through faith, in the promise and life of God in Christ by the Spirit, and our salvation on the future Day when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and all things are made new.

This isn't mere bread and wine done for the sake of sentimentality, or as a nice pious ritual; it is Jesus Christ Himself, living and incarnate, the Crucified and the Risen, our Lord, our God, with us, present for us, in our amidst, nourishing us with faith, administering grace upon grace that we, indeed and truly, have life in Him. Not out of our own efforts of obedience which fail and for which none of us could stand before God; but by the grace of God alone, in Christ alone, it is His work alone.

-CryptoLutheran

I see what you are saying here, I think I'm getting thrown off a bit not by Christ's word, but by those who in debate with those who see it as a memorial emphasize the literalness of it all. I may be taking it too far in my understanding?

 

[hedrick]

Would you say your view is close to that of Lutherans?

I'm Reformed. Historically there's supposed to be a huge difference. Lutherans take "this is my body" with complete literalness, where I take it as metaphorical. However as far as I know most of what I said would be appropriate for Lutherans as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see what you are saying here, I think I'm getting thrown off a bit not by Christ's word, but by those who in debate with those who see it as a memorial emphasize the literalness of it all. I may be taking it too far in my understanding?

Sacramental sorts, such as myself, really do believe that the bread and wine is literally the flesh and blood of Jesus. That is, what is sanctified on the altar is nothing less than the same person who we read about in the Gospels. Which is why we are very emphatic that the elements are not just "a memorial" or "symbols", but that these are, really, Jesus Christ. The "mode" in which He is present is sacramental, hidden "in and under" the elements, but it is still Him, no different than when He called out to Peter and his brother Andrew to come and follow Him, or when He stood before Pilate, or the morning He rose from the dead. Same Jesus, same body, same person, same everything.

In one sense I would prefer someone mistakenly believe I am a cannibal then mistakenly believe that I don't believe in the Real Presence. It's that important.

A reason, however, that we say that it is not cannibalism is because cannibalism requires devouring someone, it is an act of violence, it is to take something away from them--say a piece of their flesh--or to end their existence (etc). None of these things are true of the Eucharist. When we receive and eat the bread, and drink the wine, Jesus has lost nothing, He remains whole, no bite has been taken out of His arm or leg. No act of violence has been committed again His body.

There's also a very important reason why most Christians are, arguably, uncomfortable with trying to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist--the how of Christ's presence--and that's because trying to explain it will almost definitely end up being wrong and quite probably in error. How is Christ present in the Eucharist? How is ordinary bread and wine the body and blood of Christ? To this many of us would simply prefer not to try and answer. The closest Lutherans get is to speak of the "Sacramental Union", which is simply an analogy. Orthodox likewise prefer not to try and explain it. The closest any church really gets to trying to explain it is Roman Catholicism with Transubstantiation.

Thus, fundamentally, it remains a Mystery; how is it that this bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ? We don't know. But that it is is an essential conffesion of faith; because the Eucharist is not just some symbolic ritual or memorial service; it is a koinonia in and with Christ's body and blood, because it is Christ's body and blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BubbaJack]

Sacramental sorts, such as myself, really do believe that the bread and wine is literally the flesh and blood of Jesus. That is, what is sanctified on the altar is nothing less than the same person who we read about in the Gospels. Which is why we are very emphatic that the elements are not just "a memorial" or "symbols", but that these are, really, Jesus Christ. The "mode" in which He is present is sacramental, hidden "in and under" the elements, but it is still Him, no different than when He called out to Peter and his brother Andrew to come and follow Him, or when He stood before Pilate, or the morning He rose from the dead. Same Jesus, same body, same person, same everything.

In one sense I would prefer someone mistakenly believe I am a cannibal then mistakenly believe that I don't believe in the Real Presence. It's that important.

A reason, however, that we say that it is not cannibalism is because cannibalism requires devouring someone, it is an act of violence, it is to take something away from them--say a piece of their flesh--or to end their existence (etc). None of these things are true of the Eucharist. When we receive and eat the bread, and drink the wine, Jesus has lost nothing, He remains whole, no bite has been taken out of His arm or leg. No act of violence has been committed again His body.

There's also a very important reason why most Christians are, arguably, uncomfortable with trying to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist--the how of Christ's presence--and that's because trying to explain it will almost definitely end up being wrong and quite probably in error. How is Christ present in the Eucharist? How is ordinary bread and wine the body and blood of Christ? To this many of us would simply prefer not to try and answer. The closest Lutherans get is to speak of the "Sacramental Union", which is simply an analogy. Orthodox likewise prefer not to try and explain it. The closest any church really gets to trying to explain it is Roman Catholicism with Transubstantiation.

Thus, fundamentally, it remains a Mystery; how is it that this bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ? We don't know. But that it is is an essential conffesion of faith; because the Eucharist is not just some symbolic ritual or memorial service; it is a koinonia in and with Christ's body and blood, because it is Christ's body and blood.

-CryptoLutheran

Some months ago I attended an Anglican service (ACNA) and the pastor right before the Eucharist said, "its his body and blood because he says so." Would you agree? I'm not sure that's going as far as what you said.
This is so strange to me, but only because I'm looking into Lutheranism and find some things very attractive, mainly assurance and their understanding of human fallibility. And beer.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some months ago I attended an Anglican service (ACNA) and the pastor right before the Eucharist said, "its his body and blood because he says so." Would you agree? I'm not sure that's going as far as what you said.
This is so strange to me, but only because I'm looking into Lutheranism and find some things very attractive, mainly assurance and their understanding of human fallibility. And beer.

It's pretty straight to the point, but yeah. In some way it really does boil down to it's His body and blood because He says so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Philip_B]

The John Donne line, often attributed to Elizabeth 1, has been the line of many Anglicans. Rough memory quote.

His was the word that spake it
And what his word doth make it
I do believe and take it.​

 

[archer75]

I'm going to admit that I don't fully get the argument that goes "He said 'This is my body and blood', so therefore in the Eucharist it's really his body and blood." If we're going to take that at exactly face value, why doesn't it apply only to THAT wine and bread there and then?

Not saying that anything is or isn't so. Just that I can't follow thst thought.