Understanding The Eucharist

[ViaCrucis]

That would be "emblem," the statement defining the Trinity would be the "Emblem of Faith."

Emblem is a visible sign of something invisible. The bread is the visible sign of the invisible sacrificed flesh, which means the bread is the sacrificed flesh, just invisible.

From the Definition of Chalcedon:
"καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν καραδέδωκε σύμβολον"
"kai to ton pateron hemin karadedoke symbolon"
"and the Creed of the fathers has handed down to us"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

That would be "emblem," the statement defining the Trinity would be the "Emblem of Faith."

Emblem is a visible sign of something invisible. The bread is the visible sign of the invisible sacrificed flesh, which means the bread is the sacrificed flesh, just invisible.

From the Definition of Chalcedon:
"καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν καραδέδωκε σύμβολον"
"kai to ton pateron hemin karadedoke symbolon"
"and the Creed of the fathers has handed down to us"

Symbol = emblem = visible sign (bread) of the invisible (reality of actual sacrificed flesh).

 

[Clare73]

Christ said that the meal he was instituting at the event we call the Last Supper was his body and his blood. Not that the bread and wine represented them.

Review my posts. . .you are not paying attention.

Jesus lived and died under the OT sacrificial laws which he came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice as in the OT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice. Therefore:

I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.

It is the NT sacrificial meal--patterned on the OT sacrificial meal where the offerer ate a part of the sacrificed flesh thereby participating in the benefits of the sacrifice--where we likewise eat of the actual sacrificed flesh of Christ, and in the cup of thanksgiving/blessing we participate in the actual sacrificed blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.

III. Likewise, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper as the "real presence" of Jesus, for the meal is a partaking of the sacrifice, as in the OT, which by definition must be dead.
Likewise, the wine is his poured-out blood on the ground (death).
There is no living "real presence" of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, which is the NT sacrificial meal on the actual sacrificed flesh.

Rather, the NT presents the real presence of Jesus within the born again (John 17:23), not in the Lord's Supper.

The NT teaching on the Lord's Supper does not allow for a "real presence" of Jesus, which has already been provided within us (John 17:23).

Why is within us not sufficient, that we must improve upon it with our own contra-Biblical invention?

There is no need for improvement on the NT's location of the "real presence."

These are the Biblical facts of Paul's statement that "the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes."
These are the Biblical facts regarding the OT sacrificial system which Jesus came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal correspondending to the OT sacrificial meal.
These are the Biblical facts ignored in your explanation of the Lord's Supper, and presented above.

 

[Albion]

Review my posts. . .you are not paying attention.

Unfortunately, I was paying attention to what you posted. You based your argument against Real Presence on cherry-picking what Christ himself said about the matter when he instituted the sacrament we're supposed to be discussing in this thread. I referred to you to the part(s) which you omitted. That doesn't seem unfair.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Review my posts. . .you are not paying attention.

Jesus lived and died under the OT sacrificial laws which he came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice as in the OT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice. Therefore:

I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.

It is the NT sacrificial meal--patterned on the OT sacrificial meal where the offerer ate a part of the sacrificed flesh thereby participating in the benefits of the sacrifice--where we likewise eat of the actual sacrificed flesh of Christ, and in the cup of thanksgiving/blessing we participate in the actual sacrificed blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.

III. Likewise, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper as the "real presence" of Jesus, for the meal is a partaking of the sacrifice, as in the OT, which by definition must be dead.
Likewise, the wine is his poured-out blood on the ground (death).
There is no living "real presence" of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, which is the NT sacrificial meal on the actual sacrificed flesh.

Rather, the NT presents the real presence of Jesus within the born again (John 17:23), not in the Lord's Supper.

The NT teaching on the Lord's Supper does not allow for a "real presence" of Jesus, which has already been provided within us (John 17:23).

Why is within us not sufficient, that we must improve upon it with our own contra-Biblical invention?

There is no need for improvement on the NT's location of the "real presence."

Jesus said "This is", the rest is commentary.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Yes, "the eucharist is true," but not in the way your friend thinks it is.
Jesus lived and died under the OT sacrificial laws which he came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice as in the OT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice. Therefore:
I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.

It is the NT sacrificial meal--patterned on the OT sacrificial meal where the offerer ate a part of the sacrificed flesh thereby participating in the benefits of the sacrifice--where we likewise eat of the actual sacrificed flesh of Christ, and in the cup of thanksgiving/blessing we participate in the actual sacrificed blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.

III. Likewise, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper as the "real presence" of Jesus, for the meal is a partaking of the sacrifice, as in the OT, which by definition must be dead.
Likewise, the wine is his poured-out blood on the ground (death).
There is no living "real presence" of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, which is the NT sacrificial meal on the actual sacrificed flesh.

Rather, the NT presents the real presence of Jesus within the born again (John 17:23), not in the Lord's Supper.

The NT teaching on the Lord's Supper does not allow for a "real presence" of Jesus, which has already been provided within us (John 17:23).

Why is within us not sufficient, that we must improve upon it with our own contra-Biblical invention?

There is no need for improvement on the NT's location of the "real presence."

These are the Biblical facts of Paul's statement that "the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes."
These are the Biblical facts regarding the OT sacrificial system which Jesus came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal correspondending to the OT sacrificial meal.
These are the Biblical facts ignored in your explanation of the Lord's Supper, and presented above.

Unfortunately, I was paying attention to what you posted. You based your argument against Real Presence on cherry-picking what Christ himself said about the matter when he instituted the sacrament

Read it again. . .you're not paying attention.

The cherry picking would be by one who ignores what Scripture presents regarding the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26; OT sacrificial system which Jesus fulfilled, including its sacrificial meal; and
the nature of the OT meal--on sacrificed flesh, etc.), and in its stead adds one's own ideas (e.g., "real presence") regarding the Lord's Supper, which ideas enjoy no Biblical support and are, in fact, denied in its OT pattern on sacrificed flesh, where there is no living presence, which is why the Lord's Supper proclaims the Lord's death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

 

[Albion]

Read it again. . .you're not paying attention.

The cherry picking would be by one who ignores what Scripture presents regarding the Lord's Supper

Agreed. And that was the point of my comments.

But notice...you never seem to counter the information given you, or agree with it, for that matter. Instead, it's essentially ignored and you turn to something else. That's not a formula for having a discussion that goes anywhere.

 

[Clare73]

Agreed. And that was the point of my comments.

But notice...you never seem to counter the information given you, or agree with it, for that matter. Instead, it's essentially ignored and you turn to something else. That's not a formula for having a discussion that goes anywhere.

I am not disagreeing with Jesus that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I am agreeing with him totally.

Nor am I disagreeing that the Lord's Supper is that flesh and blood.
I am agreeing with him totally.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus said "This is", the rest is commentary.

-CryptoLutheran

I am in total agreement that the Lord's Supper is Christ's flesh and blood which we must eat to have life (which he purchased by his death).

 

[The Liturgist]

That would be "emblem," the statement defining the Trinity would be the "Emblem of Faith."

Emblem is a visible sign of something invisible. The bread is the visible sign of the invisible sacrificed flesh, which means the bread is the sacrificed flesh, just invisible.

I have the Orthodox liturgical texts. It is referred to in Greek, English and Church Slavonic as the “Symbol of Faith.” We should not presume to know more about Greek Orthodoxy than an ordained tonsured Reader in that denomination.

 

[Clare73]

I have the Orthodox liturgical texts. It is referred to in Greek, English and Church Slavonic as the “Symbol of Faith.” We should not presume to know more about Greek Orthodoxy than an ordained tonsured Reader in that denomination.

Well, I'm just quoting GreekOrthodox in post #75, and elaborating on what he presents, taking it to his necessary conclusion based on the definition of "emblem."

You don't think he knows?

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, I'm just quoting GreekOrthodox in post #75, and elaborating on what he presents, taking it to his necessary conclusion based on the definition of "emblem."

You don't think he knows?

It says “Symbol”, not “Emblem.”

 

[Clare73]

It says “Symbol”, not “Emblem.”

Agreed. . .it was ViaCrucis who said "symbol" no longer means what it did back then (in his edit at the bottom of post #64), so I was giving him another word, "emblem" whose meaning seems to be what he is trying to convey.

At this point, ViaCrucis' assertion is hypothetical to me.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That would be "emblem," the statement defining the Trinity would be the "Emblem of Faith."

Emblem is a visible sign of something invisible. The bread is the visible sign of the invisible sacrificed flesh, which means the bread is the sacrificed flesh, just invisible.

I am quoting from the Divine Liturgy in Greek, that I repeat every worship service. It does not mean emblem, but in Greek would be a "watchword" or "token used in comparisons to determine if something is genuine."

τὸ σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως
The Symbolon of the Faith

Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

 

[Clare73]

I am quoting from the Divine Liturgy in Greek, that I repeat every worship service. It does not mean emblem, but in Greek would be a "watchword" or "token used in comparisons to determine if something is genuine."

τὸ σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως
The Symbolon of the Faith

Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

Thanks!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

FYI, following historical practice, after the Sermon and before the bread and wine are brought out, catechumens and non-believers are prayed over and then commanded to leave. Only then is the Symbol of Faith spoken by the faithful. For the first few centuries, converts spent three years being taught the faith before they were baptized. In my parish, we will use this during the evening Lenten liturgy and converts will wait outside of our chapel while the service concludes as a continuation of this ancient practice.

Priest: Lord our God, Who dwells on high and watches over the humble, You sent forth Your only-begotten Son and God, our Lord Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the human race. Look down upon Your servants, the catechumens, who have inclined their necks to You, and grant them at a proper time the baptism of rebirth, the remission of sins, and the garment of incorruption. Unite them to Your holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and number them among Your chosen flock. So that with us they also may glorify Your most honorable and majestic name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.

People: Amen.

Deacon: Those who are catechumens, depart; catechumens depart; all those who are catechumens, depart. Let none of the catechumens remain.

 

[J_B_]

I couldn't put a date on this change without some research, but it's true that the church not longer teaches that. Indeed, it usually says that it never did, although that was previously the teaching. But you know how Purgatory and a lot of other historic Roman Catholic teachings have been axed lately with a little re-wording of the issue, so this is just another of those.

Really? I hadn't heard that.

When I did a quick search, I found this instead: How the Catholic Church Views Purgatory Today

 

[Maniel]

I've got a few new questions.
What exactly is meant by Christ's real presence under the eucharist? Is it the same, as in when He says He is there when 2 or 3 is together in his name? The same as in when we pray and communicate with Him? Is there anything special to this exact event?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Maniel, that's been the big question over the years. I would start with this wikipedia article which covers the various broad explanations from various church bodies:

Eucharistic theology - Wikipedia

 

[The Liturgist]

I've got a few new questions.
What exactly is meant by Christ's real presence under the eucharist? Is it the same, as in when He says He is there when 2 or 3 is together in his name? The same as in when we pray and communicate with Him? Is there anything special to this exact event?

The Eucharist has been described by Protestants, Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike as the height and summit of the Sacraments of the Church. It is the medicine of immortality, the body and blood of our Lord given to us for the remission of sins and life everlasting. It is extremely special and it is extremely important for the spiritual health of baptized Christians to take it seriously, by attending it both solemnly and joyfully, as the apex of worship; one should in general prepare oneself through consideration and remorse for our sins, and the Lord’s Supper should be partaken of “decently and in order”, to quote St. Paul.

I suggest reading 1 Corinthians chapter 11 entirely, which explains the Eucharist, and also warns about treating it casually, not discerning the body and blood of our Lord, which is spiritually harmful. However, while we should be seeking repentance for our sins and aware of them in the Eucharist, we should not be afraid to partake, indeed, we should actively seek out the Eucharist and partake as often as possible. It distresses me that not all churches celebrate a weekly Eucharist on Sunday, at a minimum.