Understanding The Eucharist

Do you believe in the Eucharist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • No sure

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Then why do you object to it being the sacrificed body as in its OT pattern of the sacrifices for sin, which Jesus' death was?

1) In Scripture, the sacrificial meals were on the sacrifice, which by definition is death.

2) Jesus instiuted the Lord's Supper at the meal of the Passover Lamb sacrifice (death).

3) In the Lord's Supper we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26),
not his resurrection.

Your Biblical basis for partaking of Jesus resurrected living body?

I didn't object to it being the sacrificed body.

I said I don't understand why we need to make a distinction. The same flesh that was pierced on Golgotha is the same flesh that rose on Sunday morning, the same flesh that He has now as He is seated at the right hand of the Father.

What matters is that it's Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't object to it being the sacrificed body.

I said I don't understand why we need to make a distinction.
Paul understood. . .and he made one (1 Corinthians 11:26).

For starters, it is the Lord's Supper as the living body and blood of Christ which causes the wrong focus on a "real presence" in the present, in a quasi-idolatrous form of worship,
rather than focusing on Christ's past redemptive work in his death which made us sons of God through faith; i.e., the gospel of Christ.

It's not about a "real presence," it's about proclaiming the Lord's death, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The same flesh that was pierced on Golgotha is the same flesh that rose on Sunday morning, the same flesh that He has now as He is seated at the right hand of the Father.

What matters is that it's Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I favor combining the reflections of John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and, soon to be Blessed, Archbishop Fulton Sheen. At Eucharist, we experience a moment in eternity: Christ's sacrifice, once and for all, is made present.
[/quotej

Absolutely.

In reflecting on the Cana miracle, Chrysostom and Augustine note that in eternity the water is wine as all moments, past and future, in eternity are present. Sheen reflects on how in the natural order, the hierarchy of living things transforms the lower into higher forms in order that the lower might share life more abundantly. In the Eucharist, the bread and wine that the living Christ consumed, and in consuming transformed them into Himself, is made present to us as His body, blood, soul and divinity for us to consume that we might have life everlasting.

John Chrysostom (Homily 22 on John's Gospel) says,"But now to show that it is He who transmutes water in the vine plants, and who converts the rain by its passage through the root into wine, He effected that in a moment at the wedding which in the plant is long in doing."

In De Trinitate, Augustine says that miracles are the acceleration of events that occur in nature over time. Significantly, he begins his explanation by saying that God draws the rainwater through the roots to the branches of the vine and makes wine. Christ's changing of the water into wine at Cana is the same process done with "unusual speed" (De Trin. III, 5).

And Fulton J. Sheen, (Life of Christ) reflects on the Last Supper:

Everything in nature has to have communion in order to live; and through it what is lower is transformed into what is higher: chemical into plants, plants into animals, animals into man. And man? Should he not be elevated through communion with Him Who “came down” from heaven to make man a partaker of the Divine nature? …

When Our Lord, after He changed the bread and wine to His Body and Blood, told His Apostles to eat and drink, He was doing for the soul of man what food and drink do for the body. Unless the plants sacrifice themselves to being plucked up from the roots, they cannot nourish or commune with man. The sacrifice of what is lowest must precede communion with what is higher. First His death was mystically represented; then communion followed. The lower is transformed into the higher; chemicals into plants; plants into animals; chemicals, plants, and animals into man; and man into Christ by communion. Animals have life more abundantly than plants; man has life more abundantly than animals. He said that He came to give a life beyond the human. As the oxygen could not live the more abundant life of the plant, unless the plant came down to it, so neither could man share Divine Life unless Our Lord came down to give it.

Indeed. Actually I feel like the words of St. John Chrysostom on the Eucharist, as expressed in the Sanctus, Institution Narrative, and Epiklesis of the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy he adopted for use in Constantinople from the older Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, which was the ancient liturgy of the city of Antioch, is the simplest and concurrently a most pure possible expression of the correct doctrine:

It is meet and right to hymn thee, to bless thee, to praise thee, to give thanks unto thee, and to worship thee in every place of thy dominion: for thou art God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing and eternally the same, thou and thine Only-begotten Son and thy Holy Spirit. Thou it was who didst bring us from non-existence into being, and when we had fallen away didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until thou hadst brought us back to heaven, and hadst endowed us with thy kingdom which is to come. For all these things we give thanks unto thee, and to thine Only-begotten Son, and thy Holy Spirit; for all things of which we know, and of which we know not, and for all the benefits bestowed upon us, both manifest and unseen. And we give thanks unto thee also for this ministry which thou dost vouchsafe to receive at our hands, even though there stand beside thee thousands of Archangels and ten thousands of Angels, the Cherubim and the Seraphim, six-winged, many eyed, soaring aloft, Singing the Triumphal Hymn, shouting, proclaiming, and saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of thy glory; Hosanna in the highest: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

The celebrant prays:
O Master who lovest mankind, cry aloud and say: Holy art thou and all-holy, thou and thine Only-begotten Son, and thy Holy Spirit: holy art thou and all-holy, and magnificent is thy glory: Who hast so loved thy world as to give thine Only-begotten Son, that all who believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; Who when he had come and had fulfilled all the dispensation for us, in the night in which he was betrayed,-- or rather, gave himself up for the life of the world,--took bread in his holy and pure and blameless hands; and when he had given thanks and blessed it, and hallowed it and broken it, he gave it to his holy Disciples and Apostles, saying:

Take, eat: this is my Body which is broken for you, for the remission of sins.

Likewise, after supper, he took the cup, saying:

Drink ye all of this: this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for any, for the remission of sins.

Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming:

Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee, on behalf of all, and for all!



There are many other ancient liturgies including the Roman Canon which is the basis for the Eucharist in the Western Church which also express this doctrine succinctly, indeed, all of those of the four ancient churches that have come down to us express it, but I feel the most beautiful and concise expression is in the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, with its extremely clear epiclesis, which makes it clear that through the action of the Holy Spirit, who was sent by Christ to be our paraklete, Christ in turn becomes present for us in the Eucharist, and we become present for Him.

I also greatly admire Archbishop Fulton Sheen as one of the three greatest televangelists, along with Rev. Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral, with whom he made a joint presentation at least once (and the Crystal Cathedral is now Christ Cathedral, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County, due to unfortunate problems with that ministry after the retirement and repose of Schuller), and Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Of these three, I think Archbishop Sheen probably had the best grasp on dogmatic theology, as the concern of Schuller was primarily evangelism, and of Dr. Kennedy, on moral theology and the preservation of traditional values concerning family life, and so forth.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I didn't object to it being the sacrificed body.

I said I don't understand why we need to make a distinction. The same flesh that was pierced on Golgotha is the same flesh that rose on Sunday morning, the same flesh that He has now as He is seated at the right hand of the Father.

What matters is that it's Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

You are of course quite right. It is one and the same body, and to be clear I don’t endorse the unusual interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that the Prothesis results in the crucified body, which is then resurrected in the epiklesis. It is an interesting idea but it reflects a tendency Theodore had, which many believed inspired Nestorius, to introduce needless divisions and distinctions and false dichotomies into Christological concepts.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Paul understood. . .and he made one (1 Corinthians 11:26).

For starters, it is the Lord's Supper as the living body and blood of Christ which causes the wrong focus on a "real presence" in the present, in a quasi-idolatrous form of worship,

There is nothing idolatrous about the Eucharistic Liturgy. Some people might object to the Roman Catholic practice of Eucharistic Devotion, but even that I cannot regard as idolatrous. Indeed, the main Orthodox objection to the Roman practice is that the instruction was to take and eat, and not merely view, but did not accuse the Roman church of any kind of idolatry.


rather than focusing on Christ's past redemptive work in his death which made us sons of God through faith; i.e., the gospel of Christ.

It's not about a "real presence," it's about proclaiming the Lord's death, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news, is that God became man, was crucified, and rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and we can do likewise.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Paul understood. . .and he made one (1 Corinthians 11:26).

For starters, it is the Lord's Supper as the living body and blood of Christ which causes the wrong focus on a "real presence" in the present, in a quasi-idolatrous form of worship,
rather than focusing on Christ's past redemptive work in his death which made us sons of God through faith; i.e., the gospel of Christ.

It's not about a "real presence," it's about proclaiming the Lord's death, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The theological problem with your argument is that it depends upon a false dichotomy between Christ crucified and Christ resurrected. God incarnate died, and rose again.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The theological problem with your argument is that it depends upon a false dichotomy between Christ crucified and Christ resurrected. God incarnate died, and rose again.
It would be Paul's argument and Paul's dichotomy, right? (1 Corinthians 11:26)

The focus of the Lord's Supper, the NT sacrificial meal, is Christ's sacrifice, per Paul, right?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It would be Paul's argument and Paul's dichotomy, right? (1 Corinthians 11:26)

The focus of the Lord's Supper, the NT sacrificial meal, is Christ's sacrifice, per Paul, right?

I don’t think you’re grasping what @ViaCrucis and I are saying.
 
Upvote 0

Maniel

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
161
114
32
Aarhus
✟22,672.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you all for your replies, it has been an interesting discussion to read. It feels like learning a new language that has a lot of nuances to take in.

Here's what I get. The Eucharist has nothing to do with re-sacrificing Christ as I first believed.
It has nothing to do with eating His literal flesh or drinking his literal blood.
But if it is not, I don't understand how it can be understood as anything besides in a metaphorical/symbolic spiritual sense. By symbolic, it's not meant as in not real. I truly believe in what The Eucharist is about, I think. Christ died for all humanity on the cross, he gave his literal flesh and blood so we could live. Not as a symbol. This is very real, and I understand the Eucharist as an re-enactment, remembrance of what happened and what is still very real and a necessity for each one of us, to receive Him, to believe in Him as the Son of God, to believe in the grace and forgiveness of sin. To be thankful and to celebrate. To tell others the good news. And by eating his flesh and blood, we receive Him in this way?

I've heard some Catholics scholars say that if The Eucharist is a mere symbol, to hell with it. Then there is nothing in it. But I just don't understand or see it that way. Is this just a classical example of Catholics/Protestant misunderstanding one another?
I believe in the real presence, just as I believe in Christ's real presence under so many circumstances. Like he is present when 2 or 3 is gathered?

It is much appreciated if some will comment on this. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mathias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thank you all for your replies, it has been an interesting discussion to read. It feels like learning a new language that has a lot of nuances to take in.

Here's what I get. The Eucharist has nothing to do with re-sacrificing Christ as I first believed.
It has nothing to do with eating His literal flesh or drinking his literal blood.
But if it is not, I don't understand how it can be understood as anything besides in a metaphorical/symbolic spiritual sense. By symbolic, it's not meant as in not real. I truly believe in what The Eucharist is about, I think. Christ died for all humanity on the cross, he gave his literal flesh and blood so we could live. Not as a symbol. This is very real, and I understand the Eucharist as an re-enactment, remembrance of what happened and what is still very real and a necessity for each one of us, to receive Him, to believe in Him as the Son of God, to believe in the grace and forgiveness of sin. To be thankful and to celebrate. To tell others the good news. And by eating his flesh and blood, we receive Him in this way?

I've heard some Catholics scholars say that if The Eucharist is a mere symbol, to hell with it. Then there is nothing in it. But I just don't understand or see it that way. Is this just a classical example of Catholics/Protestant misunderstanding one another?
I believe in the real presence, just as I believe in Christ's real presence under so many circumstances. Like he is present when 2 or 3 is gathered?

It is much appreciated if some will comment on this. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mathias

A lot of this has to be viewed from the context of the Divine Liturgy. Liturgy is the Greek for "Work of the people", so the congregation is always involved. The Christian faith is one of participation with God (vertical) and with each other (horizontal). The Jewish people were given a pattern of worship with the temple, and Christian worship is a partial fulfillment of that pattern. Finally, Revelation is the final fulfillment of that pattern.

One common feature in all of the various liturgies is that we are worshiping WITH the heavenly hosts:

Orthodox
We thank You also for this Liturgy, which You have deigned to receive from our hands, even though thousands of archangels and tens of thousands of angels stand around You, the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring aloft upon their wings, Singing the triumphal hymn, exclaiming, proclaiming, and saying…

People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
Catholic
And so, with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
Lutheran
Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Your glorious name, evermore praising you and saying, "Holy, Holy, Holy..."
Anglican
And now we give you thanks because you gather your children throughout the world
to be one, even as you, Father, are one with your Son and the Holy Spirit; and to be the body of Christ and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the gathered company of heaven, we praise and glorify you, saying: "Holy, holy, holy"...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Paul understood. . .and he made one (1 Corinthians 11:26).

For starters, it is the Lord's Supper as the living body and blood of Christ which causes the wrong focus on a "real presence" in the present, in a quasi-idolatrous form of worship,
rather than focusing on Christ's past redemptive work in his death which made us sons of God through faith; i.e., the gospel of Christ.

It's not about a "real presence," it's about proclaiming the Lord's death, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's Jesus. He is real, and really present in the Eucharist. The bread and the wine is Jesus: the eternal Logos who was conceived and born of Mary, who calmed the wind and the waves, who fed the five thousand, made the blind to see, the lame to walk, and who ate with sinners and tax collectors; the same who was betrayed, handed over to Pontius Pilate, suffered, was crucified, died, was buried, rose again, ascended to the Father, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again.

It's Jesus.

It is Jesus' body.
It is Jesus' blood.
It is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's Jesus. He is real, and really present in the Eucharist. The bread and the wine is Jesus: the eternal Logos who was conceived and born of Mary, who calmed the wind and the waves, who fed the five thousand, made the blind to see, the lame to walk, and who ate with sinners and tax collectors; the same who was betrayed, handed over to Pontius Pilate, suffered, was crucified, died, was buried, rose again, ascended to the Father, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again.
It's Jesus.

It is Jesus' body.
It is Jesus' blood.
It is Jesus.
Yes, it is the sacrifice of Jesus.

Why are you not satisfied with the Biblical explanation of the NT sacrificial meal in the Lord's Supper, as a proclamation of Jesus' death (1 Corinthians 11:26) for the remission of our sin and redemption from eternal condemnation (John 3:18)?

That is the gospel.

Do you feel the gospel or the word of God needs improving?

What's really going on here?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Thank you all for your replies, it has been an interesting discussion to read. It feels like learning a new language that has a lot of nuances to take in.

Here's what I get. The Eucharist has nothing to do with re-sacrificing Christ as I first believed.
It has nothing to do with eating His literal flesh or drinking his literal blood.
But if it is not, I don't understand how it can be understood as anything besides in a metaphorical/symbolic spiritual sense. By symbolic, it's not meant as in not real. I truly believe in what The Eucharist is about, I think. Christ died for all humanity on the cross, he gave his literal flesh and blood so we could live. Not as a symbol. This is very real, and I understand the Eucharist as an re-enactment, remembrance of what happened and what is still very real and a necessity for each one of us, to receive Him, to believe in Him as the Son of God, to believe in the grace and forgiveness of sin. To be thankful and to celebrate. To tell others the good news. And by eating his flesh and blood, we receive Him in this way?

I've heard some Catholics scholars say that if The Eucharist is a mere symbol, to hell with it. Then there is nothing in it. But I just don't understand or see it that way. Is this just a classical example of Catholics/Protestant misunderstanding one another?
I believe in the real presence, just as I believe in Christ's real presence under so many circumstances. Like he is present when 2 or 3 is gathered?

It is much appreciated if some will comment on this. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mathias

We are not sinking our teeth into Jesus' arm, we are not chewing skin and muscle cells, we aren't draining Jesus' blood and drinking hemoglobin.

But it is still Jesus' flesh.
It is still Jesus' blood.

Not a symbol of these, but actually are these.

How is this possible? How can this be? How are we eating Jesus' body and drinking Jesus' blood "in, with, and under" (as we Lutherans say) the bread and the wine? That is an unfathomable mystery.

The point is Jesus said "This is", "This is My body" and "This is the blood of the new covenant". So it is. Not symbolically, or metaphorically, but really and truly; though in a way and manner beyond our understanding, beyond our reason. We believe this not because of human philosophy, or reason, or traditions of men; we believe this because the Son of God Himself took bread and said, "This is My body", and so we in faith confess, "Amen, this is most certainly true".

So we come to the Table to receive not mere bread and wine, but the very Same Lord Jesus Christ who suffered for us on the cross, who rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father in glory. The one and same Jesus, His very flesh and blood--He Himself--right there in, with, and under the meager and mundane elements of bread and wine.

We are, in a way that we do not and cannot comprehend, eating and drinking Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

It's not "literally" His flesh and blood only in the sense that we aren't sinking our teeth into human meat; but it is very much really, actually, truly His flesh and blood.

And because it is His flesh and blood we are partaking of His free and once-and-for-all sacrifice; and thus we are "partakers of the sacrifice of the altar" (1 Corinthians 10:18), and there is therefore forgiveness of sins here. Forgiveness of sins not by ritual or human work, or by masticating and drinking; but forgiveness of sins by the once and finished work of Jesus who died and is risen. We receive Jesus here, we receive all that Jesus has done here.

God, in His love, comes down and invades our lives with His grace here in the Supper. When we come to the Table we approach the Holy of Holies.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Yes, it is the sacrifice of Jesus.

Why are you not satisfied with the Biblical explanation of the NT sacrificial meal in the Lord's Supper, as a proclamation of Jesus' death (1 Corinthians 11:26) for the remission of our sin and redemption from eternal condemnation (John 3:18)?

That is the gospel.

Do you feel the gospel or the word of God needs improving?

What's really going on here?

To paraphrase Martin Luther: Jesus said hoc est, and that settles it.

And so that is what I believe and confess.

To quote Luther again, "My mind is held captive to the word of God".

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don’t think you’re grasping what @ViaCrucis and I are saying.
Are you not presenting a focus other than the Biblical one of 1 Corinthians 11:26, which is the sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of our sin and redemption from eternal condemnation?

Is that not the gospel?
Do you feel the gospel or the word of God in 1 Corinthians 11:26 needs improving?

What is this about?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To paraphrase Martin Luther: Jesus said hoc est, and that settles it.

And so that is what I believe and confess.

To quote Luther again, "My mind is held captive to the word of God".
Does that include 1 Corinthians 11:26, which is in complete agreement with hoc est and the Lord's Supper being a proclamation of his death?

What is really going on here?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Does that include 1 Corinthians 11:26, which is in complete agreement with hoc est and the Lord's Supper being a proclamation of his death?

What is really going on here?

Of course it does.

What is really going on in the Eucharist is that we are receiving Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who gave His life as a ransom as the Servant of servants and who lives and reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Maniel

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
161
114
32
Aarhus
✟22,672.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We are not sinking our teeth into Jesus' arm, we are not chewing skin and muscle cells, we aren't draining Jesus' blood and drinking hemoglobin.

But it is still Jesus' flesh.
It is still Jesus' blood.

Not a symbol of these, but actually are these.

How is this possible? How can this be? How are we eating Jesus' body and drinking Jesus' blood "in, with, and under" (as we Lutherans say) the bread and the wine? That is an unfathomable mystery.

The point is Jesus said "This is", "This is My body" and "This is the blood of the new covenant". So it is. Not symbolically, or metaphorically, but really and truly; though in a way and manner beyond our understanding, beyond our reason. We believe this not because of human philosophy, or reason, or traditions of men; we believe this because the Son of God Himself took bread and said, "This is My body", and so we in faith confess, "Amen, this is most certainly true".

So we come to the Table to receive not mere bread and wine, but the very Same Lord Jesus Christ who suffered for us on the cross, who rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father in glory. The one and same Jesus, His very flesh and blood--He Himself--right there in, with, and under the meager and mundane elements of bread and wine.

We are, in a way that we do not and cannot comprehend, eating and drinking Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

It's not "literally" His flesh and blood only in the sense that we aren't sinking our teeth into human meat; but it is very much really, actually, truly His flesh and blood.

And because it is His flesh and blood we are partaking of His free and once-and-for-all sacrifice; and thus we are "partakers of the sacrifice of the altar" (1 Corinthians 10:18), and there is therefore forgiveness of sins here. Forgiveness of sins not by ritual or human work, or by masticating and drinking; but forgiveness of sins by the once and finished work of Jesus who died and is risen. We receive Jesus here, we receive all that Jesus has done here.

God, in His love, comes down and invades our lives with His grace here in the Supper. When we come to the Table we approach the Holy of Holies.

-CryptoLutheran

I like your description of what the Eucharist means. But surely the Bible is often speaking in very symbolic/metaphoric/poetic/mythic language?

For example, I don't think Genesis necessarily mean that that World was created in 6 literal days. I think the author wrote in a poetic language. And Jesus clearly didn't mean he was a door, or a tree and we the branches in a literal sense. But in a metaphorical sense it is true spiritually and therefore real. Jesus really is the door, the way and life in which we enter. And I just interpret John 6 the same way, because it just seem like all the rest of his spiritual teachings. It just seem absurd to me, that one has to believe that we eat Jesus. As you say not in a literal sense, in that it's his bloody flesh or his ear. But you still say it's his flesh, so in that way I can't see how you escape interpreting it in a literal sense? Something's in the Bible are mysteries, and perhaps I should leave it at that.

So when Jesus is saying He is a door. Do you take it at same face value as the bread you eat is Jesus?

It seem natural to me, that when He said this is my flesh, in the context of those thousand hungry people, and His reference to the Mana God gave in the dessert, He is saying that the bread He gives will never make you hunger again like real food. His Word, Faith in Him, His sacrifice on the cross (his flesh and blood) is what He is trying to communicate to the people, and us.

Again, I'm still trying to learn so I will think about what you said above.

- Mathias
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,231
6,173
North Carolina
✟278,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course it does.

What is really going on in the Eucharist is that we are receiving Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who gave His life as a ransom as the Servant of servants and who lives and reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Wonder why Paul focused on Jesus sacrificial death in the NT sacrificial meal instead of his Lordship. . .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I hear your point, but let's leave John 6 aside in this argument. The rest of what we have to consult, such as the Scripture accounts of the Last Supper and the first century interpretation of the church, are convincing enough. But what is believed isn't exactly literal.

No church believes that when you commune, you are eating the foot that was nailed to the cross, for example. With millions of Eucharists taking place around the world every week and at the same time, this also says that the observance does not involve "literal flesh." Literally speaking, flesh has blood, for example.

The Roman Catholic Church "solves" that problem by stipulating that all the "accidents," the characteristics of the elements, remain that of bread and wine although you are supposed to believe it is Christ's real flesh and blood instead. But even if that were so and even if there were evidence of such a belief from the Apostolic age, it would still not be exactly Christ's body.

What you're dealing with is a mystery, something transcendent. Yes, it includes the real presence of Christ, and is not just symbolic. But it is really Christ in a supernatural way. That fact doesn't diminish the wondrous and intimate nature of the sacrament.
 
Upvote 0