Lords supper is symbolic

[chaz491]

Chaz, the "don't feel bad" comment is high schoolish.... all that kind of stuff does is cause division. And over what? Because I don't believe that when he sat there in his body, before it was broken, and said "this is my body" to the bread he was holding, that he meant it literally? So, when one doesn't agree with YOUR understanding, we get mildly maligned?

I apologize. I really need to cease trying to debate issues.

I guess my point of view comes from a belief that Christ guided the church into truth and a study of church history and its beliefs shows the church has never changed its beliefs about the Eucharist and many other things. My point of view come from a belief in the Church. The Church is an object of faith for us. Former Protestant Minister Scott Hahn explains in one of his talks that this is why the church is a part of the creed - "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" The church is an object of faith. If it were not, it would not be in the creed. He describes it as a supernatural organism. This is a belief of any devout catholic even though most would not be able to articulate it. They believe even though they cant explain it.

Again, I apologize if I have caused any hurt feelings (which I probably have)

 

[Ken Rank]

I apologize. I really need to cease trying to debate issues.

I guess my point of view comes from a belief that Christ guided the church into truth and a study of church history and its beliefs shows the church has never changed its beliefs about the Eucharist and many other things. My point of view come from a belief in the Church. The Church is an object of faith for us. Former Protestant Minister Scott Hahn explains in one of his talks that this is why the church is a part of the creed - "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" The church is an object of faith. If it were not, it would not be in the creed. He describes it as a supernatural organism. This is a belief of any devout catholic even though most would not be able to articulate it. They believe even though they cant explain it.

Again, I apologize if I have caused any hurt feelings (which I probably have)

Thank you and no, I am not bothered I just hate when things go in that direction over a disagreement. In my case, regarding what you stated, I don't see the "church" as an object of faith... I see the Lord as out object of faith. And whereas we both agree he works through the church (assembly, ekklesia) I see something that was very Jewish for the first 100 years... not Greek. And so my studies lean in another direction than yours. Who is correct? I don't know... doesn't matter... we'll all be corrected as none have every correct at this time anyway. As long as we are secure enough in HIM to be able to mean that when we say it... we'll be fine. Blessings.

 

[Tangible]

Wrong! Profiteth nothing in so far as eating it (the context of Jn 6) not of all this you have written above.

So apparently you are content with your inconsistency.

Why would Jesus be recorded as giving a long discourse on eating his body and drinking his blood, then turn around and say that doing so would profit nothing?

We have Jesus' clear word in the Sacrament. That word is spirit and truth. It accomplishes what it says. "This is my body." This is my blood."

This "the flesh profits nothing" argument is very weak, for reasons explained earlier.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi, DrBL.



Sounds reasonable, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation does insist that it is literally, carnally, His flesh and blood, and that none of the bread and wine remain after they are consecrated.

Yes, but.

This expression is leaving out part of the teaching. The truth, and rather thankfully so, that to our senses it usually remains in the appearance of bread and wine though. I see no problem saying God can do this for our benefit. I get it is hard to believe, which is why the Apostles said it is hard to believe.

{adding} It is more like saying He is made actually Present very physically in the Bread and Wine - rather not undifferent than saying a Man is also God. So God is Present in that human even though in appearance He is still also very much human.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3
"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."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Rather than making an argument, you just said, "mystery". Not an argument, and definitely not exegesis.

If you say so. Personally I find the Trinity Doctrine a harder concept for most people to swallow (pun intended). God said He is doing this for us and we need it as a spiritual sustenance in this life.

Interestingly, a comment made here in this thread about the Last Supper Gospel presentation made me ponder (not the first to do so) the idea Adam needed to eat something too. Many theologians (not just Catholic ones) associate that with Jesus and/or also providing immortality - which Adam lost access to because of sin.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If you say so. Personally I find the Trinity Doctrine a harder concept for most people to swallow (pun intended). God said He is doing this for us and we need it as a spiritual sustenance in this life.

Interestingly, a comment made here in this thread about the Last Supper Gospel presentation made me ponder (not the first to do so) the idea Adam needed to eat something too. Many theologians (not just Catholic ones) associate that with Jesus and/or also providing immortality - which Adam lost access to because of sin.

Do you every look at human flesh and salivate? No, you don't. You don't because it's not food.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but.

This expression is leaving out part of the teaching. The truth, and rather thankfully so, that to our senses it usually remains in the appearance of bread and wine though. I see no problem saying God can do this for our benefit. I get it is hard to believe, which is why the Apostles said it is hard to believe.

Okay, but how hard it is to believe any teaching isn't the test of whether it's correct or not.

It is more like saying He is made actually Present very physically in the Bread and Wine - rather not undifferent than saying a Man is also God.

Actually, that's what Luther said and it's a rejection of Transubstantiation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3
"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."

This doesn't say anything I haven't said about it. I would note, however, that the Catechism is meant only as a primer, not as the last word on the church's official teaching, and that, as a result, some matters are explained only in an imprecise way. Here we have "under the species of bread and wine" without any clear explanation of how we are to take that. The church's teaching is that it appears, tastes, feels, etc. like bread and wine but it's totally changed into Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, but how hard it is to believe any teaching isn't the test of whether it's correct or not.


Actually, that's what Luther said and it's a rejection of Transubstantiation.


This doesn't say anything I haven't said about it. I would note, however, that the Catechism is meant only as a primer, not as the last word on the church's official teaching, and that, as a result, some matters are explained only in an imprecise way. Here we have "under the species of bread and wine" without any clear explanation of how we are to take that. The church's teaching is that it appears, tastes, feels, etc. like bread and wine but it's totally changed into Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Like God totally became also a Man. So in appearance and in every possible way including our senses, that is Man - yet God is also very much and actually present there. The idea anyway is not contrary to what we know God can do. Also is the most fitting description of what the Apostles described as a hard teaching, rather than imagining all of that discourse was misunderstood by everyone and God did not straighten it out for His Apostles. That He didn't do so would be evident in that the people those men taught reflect much of the same things I posted here in their writings and no living Apostles objected to that.

There has never been a teaching of any Church that takes it as having to taste like blood and raw human flesh. Christians in Roman days were accused of cannibalism because they (and some of us still now) talk that way about the Eucharist. There have been Christian denying Jesus could be both God and man because they do not understand how God could do that. I don't have that problem either there or with the Eucharist.
[adding - I cannot speak to what Luther believed, but I seem to recall it was vague or something to believe or not.]

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Do you every look at human flesh and salivate? No, you don't. You don't because it's not food.

While it is true God contrasted this "food" of His Body and Blood with real food - like the food He had just filled their bellies with and also the manna He had provided the Israelites - He clearly says this is not that sort of food. That we treat this food differently that the natural sort of food is evident in our practice restricting our eating of real food before a Mass.

The cannibalism charge is only funny to Romans and others who think God talking about providing us with a real spiritual food for our benefit had to be understood as offering us a physical meal.
Also, if I recall correctly, in the cases where the Eucharist has changed to real blood and flesh, no one has ever consumed it - even though I think in at least one instance the change to flesh occurred in someone's mouth (they did not swallow).

BTW a spiritual food by definition cannot make this current body immortal. Whether we need the same food or not in Heaven to be immortal is an interesting point since apparently some say Adam need to eat something for his body to be able to "not die" or decay.

 

[Greg Merrill]

So apparently you are content with your inconsistency.

Why would Jesus be recorded as giving a long discourse on eating his body and drinking his blood, then turn around and say that doing so would profit nothing?

We have Jesus' clear word in the Sacrament. That word is spirit and truth. It accomplishes what it says. "This is my body." This is my blood."

This "the flesh profits nothing" argument is very weak, for reasons explained earlier.

I don't want to "argue" the point, but seeing you asked me a direct question I will reply. The long discourse was not to mislead people into any idea that they had to physically eat his body. Sometimes we just take it for granted that people will understand something is spoken spiritually (or not to be taken literally), and trust that they will see the correlation between a physical image given and the actual reality it represents. Just as our body needs to take in food to benefit from it, people need to take in (trust in) the work of Jesus upon the cross in dying in their place for payment of their sins, and invite him IN to their lives to be their personal Savior and Lord. The spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, even the Spirit of the Father (Mt 10:20) doesn't enter the physical mouth of one that receives Him, but God's spirit does enter their body (1Co 6:19 "What, know ye not that your body is the temple of God...") This is what Jesus was talking about, not eating his flesh and drinking his literal blood.

 

[seashale76]

Every single time that I take communion, I experience/know beyond a doubt that the Real Presence is true. Every. Single. Time. This is not something anyone can prove to anyone else, it must be experienced. I have only experienced that in the Orthodox Church. I can speak of no other groups that believe in the Real Presence because I have not had communion with them.

However, I do agree with those that tell us that it is only symbolic in their churches. I have no doubt that it is only symbolic in your churches. I've experienced that reality as well. I was raised with it. The memorial only communion is a reality for plenty of people in America. I still recall taking it seriously whenever communion time rolled around- but it always felt like an empty ritual.

I find myself feeling immensely sorry for those of you that know no other way. Those of you that can persevere in faith in such circumstances must do so on sheer force of will. It's like you're still waiting on God's promises as those in the Old Testament did.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Every single time that I take communion, I experience/know beyond a doubt that the Real Presence is true. Every. Single. Time. This is not something anyone can prove to anyone else, it must be experienced. I have only experienced that in the Orthodox Church. I can speak of no other groups that believe in the Real Presence because I have not had communion with them.

However, I do agree with those that tell us that it is only symbolic in their churches. I have no doubt that it is only symbolic in your churches. I've experienced that reality as well. I was raised with it. The memorial only communion is a reality for plenty of people in America. I still recall taking it seriously whenever communion time rolled around- but it always felt like an empty ritual.

I find myself feeling immensely sorry for those of you that know no other way. Those of you that can persevere in faith in such circumstances must do so on sheer force of will. It's like you're still waiting on God's promises as those in the Old Testament did.

Your personal experience is not an argument. Mormons insist that they are correct because they feel it. They have a "burning in the bosom". What you feel is unimportant to me. What is true, now that's important to me.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Regarding receiving "the real presence of Jesus" when taking communion... I don't have to wait for a communion service for this. The real presence of Jesus has continually been with me from the moment He saved me. If anyone should feel "sorry" it is people like me, for people that have to wait for a service before they receive "the real presence." I say that with heart sincerity, not with argument or criticism.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Your personal experience is not an argument. Mormons insist that they are correct because they feel it. They have a "burning in the bosom". What you feel is unimportant to me. What is true, now that's important to me.

Your response was my immediate response as well, though I didn't post it.

 

[seashale76]

Your personal experience is not an argument. Mormons insist that they are correct because they feel it. What you feel is unimportant to me. What is true, now that's important to me.

Well- the scriptures are pretty clear and literal about the matter. Christ was not speaking metaphorically. But, I've often found Evangelical types will take scriptures literally that are not and will make other scriptures metaphorical that are literal. It's like, in their effort to distance themselves from anything that seems too liturgical and historical, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and attempt to reinvent the wheel, to their detriment.

 

[seashale76]

It isn't symbolic/memorial only. It is what it is. It is both bread and wine and also the body and the blood of Christ. Eucharist literally means 'thanksgiving' and the entire purpose of our worship is when the Church gathers together and celebrates the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. By doing this we are participating in the mystery of salvation.

Scriptures don't back up an event that is merely symbolic:

Luke 22:19-20

John 6:51-66 (Jesus made it very clear here that he was speaking literally. Jesus did not contradict them at all when they questioned whether or not he was speaking literally. He actually clarified it for them! In verses 60-66, he actually lost disciples over his teaching.)

Hebrews 10:19-25

Genesis 4:18/Psalms 110:4/Hebrews 7:3 (Refers to Melchizedek who offered Abraham bread and wine and is spoken of in Psalms and Hebrews showing that Christ's covenant was superior to that of the Levitical Priesthood. Meaning, through Christ's body and blood he is our High Priest forever.)

1 Corinthians 11:19-30 (Paul is taking the Corinthian Church to task for using church as an opportunity to eat, drink, party, and then not share with those who didn't have anything. From the passage, it seems like they were abusing the Lord's Supper to the point of damnation. He warns them of the danger of partaking uworthily and goes on to point out that many people in that church were very sick or dead because of this major sin. It's pretty clear that a mere symbolic act wouldn't kill a person. However, this passage makes perfect sense when you consider that they were abusing the body and blood of Christ.)

The fact of the matter is, if it were just merely a sort of intellectual symbol, it would be impossible to eat and drink it unworthily. People have DIED from unworthily partaking of communion. Then, you also have history itself to contend with. Christians in the first century, such as Ignatius of Antioch, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

And as far as remembrance goes, I think remember means quite a bit more than simply thinking of. One can think of Christ without taking communion. Could you imagine if, when the wise thief asked Christ to remember him in His Kingdom, that Christ would have said something like, "I'll think of you fondly" instead of telling him that he'd be with Him in Paradise?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Your response was my immediate response as well, though I didn't post it.

I once heard a pastor say in a sermon that we should only speak of our personal experience and feelings because no one could argue against them. I was floored by such a statement as Christianity is historically-based, not feelings-based. "for this has not been done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)

Christ came and lived a perfect life and died a sinner's death, and He did so on my belhalf.

 

[seashale76]

.

 

[Philip_B]

So what does Jesus mean?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Your personal experience is not an argument. Mormons insist that they are correct because they feel it. They have a "burning in the bosom". What you feel is unimportant to me. What is true, now that's important to me.

Am unclear how that statement of what is important is true at all, if it is said true that the Gospel message as depicted and then shown in the NT as taught by the Apostles and before they died without their objected as depicted in the Apostles star pupil's writings; can all be condensed down to simply "I believe".

Jesus and the Apostles had much more to say about a Christian walk than that.