niftydrifty vs. Felicity: The Eucharist, real or symbolic?

[niftydrifty]

Felicity and I plan to debate the nature of communion. Felicity will speak about how the Roman Catholic Church views it, and I will speak about it from my perspective (CRC-ish).

 

[Felicity]

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Article 3

THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"133

• Jesus said that he was the bread of life come down from heaven and that to have eternal life one must LITERALLY eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6)
  
  
  
• The Catholic Church obeys Jesus' command.
  
  
  
• The Catholic celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, it is a PARTICIPATION in the singular event.
  
  
  
• Even though the Eucharistic celebration is a participation in the one and only sacrifice of Christ's death on the cross, there are multiple layers of symbolism also associated with the celebration. Therefore, the Catholic celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy is BOTH a memorial of Christ's Passover, AND His actual body made real and physically present at the Mass.
  
  
  
• Consecration of the bread and wine takes place in the Mass when the priest says the words spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood...."
  
  
  
• When the priest at the Catholic Mass acts to consecrate the bread and wine, it is actually Jesus Christ Himself who makes the reality of his physical Body present. Jesus is the eternal high priest of the New Covenant, and it is through his ministry of the priesthood that Christ makes Himself present on the altar. The priests are simply men who are the tools of Christ's presentation of His Body and Blood at the Mass.
  
  
  
• At the consecration, the bread and wine are no longer “substantially” present. The outer appearance of the Eucharist is still under the “signs” of bread and wine, but the “substance” is then truly and really the physical body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Himself. This is called “transubstantiation” and the changing of the “substance” of the bread and wine into the physical presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood is accomplished through the priest by Jesus Christ Himself.
  
  
  
• Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Catholic priesthood finds its foundation in the Old Covenant priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites. The Old Covenant priesthood prefigures the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. "Validly ordained" means that the priest is one who can trace his ministerial lineage back to Jesus Christ Himself through the Bishop who lays his hands upon him and confers the Sacrament of Ordination.
  
  
  
• Only the Catholic Church offers Christ's Sacrifice in the Fullness of the faith, however, a few others may also have valid Eucharist due to direct line of succession. These ecclesial communities split from the Catholic Church, but maintained the apostolic succession of their priesthood and therefore can validly confect Christ's Presence on the altar: Eastern Orthodox Churches and various schismatic Churches. It is a sad scandal that these valid Churches are split, but each of them do have apostolic succession.
  
  
  
• The Catholic Church alone, however, has the Christian faith in the Fullness of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. This is not to assert that Christ is not worshipped and honored in other ecclesial communities, but the Church that Jesus Himself founded survives and is celebrated in its complete form only within the Catholic Church. The break with other churches is a scandal and a rift that Catholics pray will heal.

 

[niftydrifty]

To interpret what Jesus says in John 6 in any literal fashion, is to deny the metaphorical ways in which Christ spoke about himself.

In John 8, Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." Why do we not believe that Christ was LITERALLY a light?

In John 10, Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep."

In John 10, Jeusus also said, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." But Jesus was not literally a shepherd, was he? Was he lying?

In John 15, Jesus said, "I am the true vine."

And in John 8, Jesus said, "I am the bread of life."

If Jesus's body was/is literally in the bread, why do we not interpret all of Jesus's sayings in the same way?

Jesus often spoke metaphorically. Metaphors can contain deeper more profound spiritual truths than a literal interpretation can.

Furthermore, to imply that there was a unified idea about the Eucharist in the Church, leading all the way up to the Protestant Reformation, is inaccurate.

According to "Early Church Fathers," there were differences in the way early Christians viewed the elements.

 

[Felicity]

To interpret what Jesus says in John 6 in any literal fashion, is to deny the metaphorical ways in which Christ spoke about himself.

No—I do not agree. To acknowledge that Jesus (as any human communicators do) conveyed metaphorical/symbolic meaning AND concrete/literal meaning in his communications is the only logical conclusion.

All Christians believe that Jesus, at different times, used parable and metaphor to communicate, but He also was very clear in his literal meaning at other times. So, how do we determine whether Jesus was speaking metaphorically or literally in John 6? We look at specifically Jesus’ words in John 6 in context, and we look to other similar examples elsewhere.

In John 8, Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." Why do we not believe that Christ was LITERALLY a light?

Let’s look at that in context:

12
5 Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
13
So the Pharisees said to him, "You testify on your own behalf, so your testimony cannot be verified."
14
Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I do testify on my own behalf, my testimony can be verified, 6 because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
15
You judge by appearances, 7 but I do not judge anyone.
16
And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me.
17
Even in your law 8 it is written that the testimony of two men can be verified.
18
I testify on my behalf and so does the Father who sent me."
19
So they said to him, "Where is your father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
20
He spoke these words while teaching in the treasury in the temple area. But no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

First—Jesus is clear that he is speaking metaphorically in that he connects “the light of the world” to “the light of life.” Second, Jesus is telling the Pharisees who doubt Him that they judge by appearances, but that Jesus has the authority of God and so “appearances” are of no worth. Think about that in relation to the “appearance” of bread and wine at Eucharist—the appearance of bread and wine is of no worth, because it is the Substance that is Jesus that is the matter.

In John 10, Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep." In John 10, Jeusus also said, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." But Jesus was not literally a shepherd, was he? Was he lying?

Again, let's look in context:
1
1 2 "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.
2
But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
3
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4
3 When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.
5
But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers."
6
Although Jesus used this figure of speech, 4 they did not realize what he was trying to tell them.
7
5 So Jesus said again, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep.
8
6 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
9
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
10
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.
11
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12
A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.
13
This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
14
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.

Jesus tells a story and then clarifies his metaphor for His disciples. Jesus is careful to explain fully what he is saying to them through his use of metaphorical language.


CONTINUED...

 

[Felicity]

If Jesus's body was/is literally in the bread, why do we not interpret all of Jesus's sayings in the same way?

Jesus' words explain:

John 16:
25
6 "I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father.
26
On that day you will ask in my name, and I do not tell you that I will ask the Father for you.
27
For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have come to believe that I came from God.
28
I came from the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."
29
His disciples said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech.
30
Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God." 7


John 6 is at issue, so I think it important to post the pertinent part where Jesus tells us that his flesh is true food and drink.

The disciples were angry. Jesus had fed them with the miracle of the loves and they wanted more—more bread—more miracles. Jesus said he was the TRUE bread from Heaven and that HE gives life to the world. Confused, they murmured isn’t he Joseph’s son? How can he say he came down from heaven when we know his mother and father? But Jesus said more...

He said....

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.


CONTINUED....

 

[Felicity]

Jesus often spoke metaphorically. Metaphors can contain deeper more profound spiritual truths than a literal interpretation can.

Agreed, however— there is reason to believe John 6 is LITERAL and I will explain why.

Mark 4:34 says, " And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples." Since Mark tells us that this was Christ's common practice, and since he did not do this at the time he was teaching in Capernaum (in John 6), and, he in fact made it a "make or break issue" with His chosen twelve at that time by confrontationally asking in John 6:68, "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? " definitavely shows that he was indeed deadly serious and literally meant what he said. The fact that Jesus reiterates it SIX times also makes it all the more forceful.



John’s gospel begins with “In the beginning was the Word...” John’s focus is on the WORDs of eternal life—the message given to those who will believe. Over and over and over again—John’s gospel charges people to LISTEN to his WORDS and BELIEVE what He has SAID, HEAR his VOICE, and DO as He TELLS... What is it that Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel? Jesus: “my flesh is TRUE food.”


But who in John’s gospel DOESN’T listen to the word of Jesus—who DOESN’T believe His words?—the Pharisees—! Jesus tells them in Chapter 8:43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.”

What He says is hard to believe and yet He says it so plainly. What is REQUIRES is that you BELIEVE His WORDS—his ACTUAL words-- and not what you want him to say—it requires you to abandon yourself and cling to Him in complete trust—that is a hard teaching.


Jesus—one in being with the Father—would not let someone walk away on a misunderstanding. The disciples that left in John 6 did so because they BELIEVED Jesus was speaking literally and they could not tolerate the message He gave them—that message was to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood—as John 8:34 said, they could not “bear to hear [His] word.”


Another Biblical reason to believe in the Real Presence is from Paul.

Paul teaches in Corinth the true physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

"16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."



1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "


Now......how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?

Furthermore, to imply that there was a unified idea about the Eucharist in the Church, leading all the way up to the Protestant Reformation, is inaccurate.

According to "Early Church Fathers," there were differences in the way early Christians viewed the elements.

Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence till the day he died. Do you think if there were the most remotely plausible argument against the Real Presence he would have invented it?

The Church has had to face many heresies in the millennia since Christ’s death and resurrection. To judiciously discuss the heresies does not compromise the Truth of the Faith, rather it demonstrates the timelessness of the truths and shows that the doctrine withstands challenges.

Here’s what some Church Fathers had to say about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:



St Ignatius of Antioch said:

From the Eucharist they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead... IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS


Take care, then to partake of the one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one is the cup to unite us with His Blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God.
IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS


Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John—the man who was THERE with Jesus in Capernaum and at the Last Supper, and at the foot of the Cross. Did John teach him incorrectly? I highly doubt it.

And others....


Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).




Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).




Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).




Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).






Cyprian
The Apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "[I Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at: the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).



St. Justin Martyr (150AD) "...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but ...as we have been taught, the food that has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic Prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology 66, 20)

 

[niftydrifty]

What this debate boils down to is that I believe that "Real Presence" is spiritual, and you believe "Real Presence is literal and spiritual. The way that you phrased the debate topic reveals much. Is it "real or symbolic?" In fact, both of our explanations can be real. I should have objected and subjected a more accurate title. "Real Presence: Literal or Spiritual?"

Felicity, can you read Greek? I admit that I cannot. And this is why you will never find me pointing to words from translations and claiming to know precisely what is meant, with authority, and without any doubt. Anyone whom does so, and that does not know Greek, I view with a great deal of suspicion. And even if you can read Greek, I believe that you're stuck on literal interpretations of the Gospel text. You won't entertain other possibilities. You assume when you do so.

I collect translations of the NT, and I have noticed the differences in word usage. For example, the key passage in John:

NIV "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
ESV "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
NKJV "For My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
NASB "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Even if John had been written in English, the phrase "true food," could mean something different than what you claim it does. It has been pointed out to me by someone whom does know Greek (I work in a Christian Academic setting and am surrounded by scholars) that elsewhere in John, the same word for true is used. "The true vine" (a metaphorical context), and "the truth." "True" could mean real, as in, literal. Or it could mean "true," as in 'not false.' It could be implying that Jesus's message is better than others.

You explain why you believe John 6 is to be taken literally, by quoting Mark 4:34. Here are some other translations of the passage in Mark. Which is the best? Why did you choose the one you chose?

NASB: and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.
GWT: He did not speak to them without using an illustration. But when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.
KJV: But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
ASV: and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.
BBE: And without a story he said nothing to them: but privately to his disciples he made all things clear.
DBY: but without a parable spoke he not to them; and in private he explained all things to his disciples.
WEY: But except in figurative language He spoke nothing to them; while to His own disciples He expounded everything, in private.
WBS: But without a parable he spoke not to them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
WEB: Without a parable he didn't speak to them; but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
YLT: and without a simile he was not speaking to them, and by themselves, to his disciples he was expounding all.

"... and He did not speak to them without a parable" ... isn't that a double negative? It seems to me to affirm that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

Paul teaches in Corinth the true physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

"16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

I fail to see how Paul's passages in Corinthians cannot be speaking about a Real Presence that is not physical or literal.

Now......how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?

Oh, I do believe it's really there. In a spiritual sense. After all, IMO, this is all about spirituality.

Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence till the day he died. Do you think if there were the most remotely plausible argument against the Real Presence he would have invented it?

I'm not making an argument against Real Presence. You and I are disagreeing about the nature of the Real Presence.

Concerning St Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Aphraahat, Cyprian, and St. Justin Martyr ... you should be more careful when you read these texts. In every example they can all easily be read to alternately (or more accurately?) point to a "Real Presence" which is spiritual, not literal.

You have quoted early church fathers whom have said that it "is" the body of Christ, but they don't explain how or precisely in what way. In every single example you have assumed it goes along with the interpretation of the RCC.

I also believe you should be careful when discussing heresies. This is another topic, but many blatant heresies have been carried out by the RCC itself. Luther believed that until the day he died, as well.

 

[Felicity]

What this debate boils down to is that I believe that "Real Presence" is spiritual, and you believe "Real Presence is literal and spiritual. The way that you phrased the debate topic reveals much. Is it "real or symbolic?" In fact, both of our explanations can be real. I should have objected and subjected a more accurate title. "Real Presence: Literal or Spiritual?"

Well...I told you you could call it what you wanted...whatevah...I don’t like how you are characterizing me as if I was being sneaky..What exactly are you implying when you say the suggested title “reveals much?” What does it reveal? I simply thaought a more succinct title than * "felicity vs niftydrifty: what is the nature of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist?" * would work better. I do, however like your newly suggested title better. I wish you would have thought of it earlier.

Felicity, can you read Greek? I admit that I cannot. And this is why you will never find me pointing to words from translations and claiming to know precisely what is meant, with authority, and without any doubt. Anyone whom does so, and that does not know Greek, I view with a great deal of suspicion. And even if you can read Greek, I believe that you're stuck on literal interpretations of the Gospel text. You won't entertain other possibilities. You assume when you do so.

I collect translations of the NT, and I have noticed the differences in word usage. For example, the key passage in John:

NIV "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
ESV "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
NKJV "For My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
NASB "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Even if John had been written in English, the phrase "true food," could mean something different than what you claim it does. It has been pointed out to me by someone whom does know Greek (I work in a Christian Academic setting and am surrounded by scholars) that elsewhere in John, the same word for true is used. "The true vine" (a metaphorical context), and "the truth." "True" could mean real, as in, literal. Or it could mean "true," as in 'not false.' It could be implying that Jesus's message is better than others.

I see your point, and no...I do not personally read Greek—however, any of those translations work for the point I’m making. Jesus said his flesh was “real,” “true” food “indeed” and his meaning is clear in the context in which he said he was “real, true food indeed.” When the disciples were confused by Jesus telling them they had to “eat his flesh” Jesus changed the word he used to make his meaning even MORE clear. The word Jesus used to describe the “eating” of his flesh was “trogo” –Ask your scholars about that word. There is NO DOUBT that Jesus was telling them to LITERALLY eat his flesh in a non-metaphorical way.

after vs 53, Jesus uses an even stronger Greek word for "eat"; he switches from using phago (which just means "eat") to using trogo which means "gnaw" or "chew".
The Eucharist - The Body and Blood of Christ

Nor can the command to "eat" the Lord’s flesh be taken metaphorically. St. John does not only use the normal Greek word for "eat," phagomai, but in verses 54, 56 and 57 uses the word trogo, a very vivid word meaning "to munch, gnaw." My research revealed that while phagomai is sometimes used metaphorically, trogo is never anything but literal in the Greek Bible and all other Greek literature.
In John 6:50-58 Jesus says six times that His hearers must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is clear that His audience understood Him literally; they were scandalized by these words. But the Lord made no move to correct their understanding; rather, He simply reiterated His teaching more strongly. Elsewhere, when the disciples or others wrongly took Him literally, He explained His figurative meaning to them (see, for instance, John 3:1-15 and Matt 16:5-12). In another Gospel passage, we are told that Jesus always explained the true meaning of His hard teachings at least to His own disciples (Mark 4:34). But in this case, He challenged even the Twelve that they could leave if they could not accept this teaching (verse 67).
Affirming All Things

(also--you may have scholars that are friends, I have a Church with a 2000 year history of scholarship--the Bible itself was codified and maintained by the Catholic Church. Just thought you ought to consider that.)




CONTINUED...

 

[Felicity]

You explain why you believe John 6 is to be taken literally, by quoting Mark 4:34. Here are some other translations of the passage in Mark. Which is the best? Why did you choose the one you chose?

I don’t care what version—in the post I typed I used the NAB and the KJV...they where the most handy for me. Do you have some particular preference? Is that why you are harping on “translations?”

"... and He did not speak to them without a parable" ... isn't that a double negative? It seems to me to affirm that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

Yes—it says he spoke in parable, BUT later, he explained it to His disciples... I don’t understand what you take issue with here. It says that yes, Jesus spoke in parable, but when his followers were confused, he explained it to them.

In John 6 Jesus did not explain he spoke metaphorically—IN FACT—he let many leave him and challenged the apostles on the issue as well. Peter was wise to say [67] Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
[68] Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

The end. Jesus was pleased that his apostles would believe even this hard teaching. He let some disciples walk away because they would not believe, and he praised those that stayed. If he did not mean it literally, he would have corrected the “misunderstanding” since the eternal souls of those that left were in jeopardy. Jesus does not lie. Jesus does not try to fool and manipulate. He meant EXACTLY what he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicity
Paul teaches in Corinth the true physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

"16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

I fail to see how Paul's passages in Corinthians cannot be speaking about a Real Presence that is not physical or literal.

He says the blessed wine IS THE BLOOD OF JESUS, the broken bread IS THE FLESH OF JESUS. What’s not clear there? Furthermore, in the verse you did not quote, Paul says that if you do not discern the body and blood (in other words if you eat it and do not acknowledge that it is the Body of Jesus and the Blood of Jesus), you eat and drink condemnation upon yourself. There is nothing to “discern” in a symbolic representation using bread and wine—what needs to be discerned in the bread and wine is the PHYSICAL PRESENCE of Christ.

If you If you are going to claim it all “means something else,” please support your contention rather than just tossing out that you don’t agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicity
Now......how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE?

Oh, I do believe it's really there. In a spiritual sense. After all, IMO, this is all about spirituality.

Then support that interpretation as I have supported the interpretation that in the Eucharist confected by Catholic priests is the real physical presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicity
Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence till the day he died. Do you think if there were the most remotely plausible argument against the Real Presence he would have invented it?

I'm not making an argument against Real Presence. You and I are disagreeing about the nature of the Real Presence.

Martin Luther On the Real Presence « Bread From Heaven Unlimited
Martin Luther on the Eucharist:
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

Concerning St Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Aphraahat, Cyprian, and St. Justin Martyr ... you should be more careful when you read these texts. In every example they can all easily be read to alternately (or more accurately?) point to a "Real Presence" which is spiritual, not literal.

Only if you are reading with blinders—how do you explain “Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).”

He says your eyes see one thing, but it is in FACT something else—and what it is, is Jesus. How do you read that differently?

You have quoted early church fathers whom have said that it "is" the body of Christ, but they don't explain how or precisely in what way. In every single example you have assumed it goes along with the interpretation of the RCC.

Augustine. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).


St. Justin Martyr (150AD) "... the food that has been made into the Eucharist....is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology 66, 20)
How do you read “is” any differently there? The bread and wine, after consecration, IS Jesus’ Body and Blood. How you are reading symbolism into the early Church Father’s sayings is eluding comprehension.



Maybe you want something even more clear?





Cyril of Jerusalem,
, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (4th Century Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (5th Century Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

I also believe you should be careful when discussing heresies. This is another topic, but many blatant heresies have been carried out by the RCC itself. Luther believed that until the day he died, as well.

The definition of heresy is to Decide for oneself what one shall believe and practice, instead of accepting the truth taught by Christ, and His moral teachings.

There have been people who were heretical within the Church and were exposed. The Church itself is not heretical in any way. Luther was a heretic—you don’t really want to go there, because Luther’s heretical obstinacy is LEGEND, and he has quite an unflattering, and troubled history—there is really no way to affirm that he was a rational and reasonable man.



I would like to reiterate that I would like to see substantive evidence of your “opinion” rather than mere assertion that you believe that the “real presence” is merely symbolic and not at all the physical presence of Jesus Christ.







.

 

[niftydrifty]

I suggest you drop the sarcasm. It's unbecoming of a religious debate between two Christians. I harp on translations because it's an issue to those of us that don't read Greek, is it not? My question was sincere. If you'd like to be an ***, so be it. And while we both consult books, I happen to know the authors of some. I mention it in passing and it becomes an item of ridicule. I wish I had thought of the title earlier too. I didn't think of it earlier, I didn't consider it, ... it was my bad, and not an attempt to characterize you as sneaky at all. everyone's wording reveals their thinking, mine included. I stated that sincerely as well. and so it goes, please drop the 'tude. I'll respond later, after I'm thru with Shooter.

 

[Felicity]

I suggest you drop the sarcasm. It's unbecoming of a religious debate between two Christians. I harp on translations because it's an issue to those of us that don't read Greek, is it not? My question was sincere. If you'd like to be an ***, so be it. And while we both consult books, I happen to know the authors of some. I mention it in passing and it becomes an item of ridicule. I wish I had thought of the title earlier too. I didn't think of it earlier, I didn't consider it, ... it was my bad, and not an attempt to characterize you as sneaky at all. everyone's wording reveals their thinking, mine included. I stated that sincerely as well. and so it goes, please drop the 'tude. I'll respond later, after I'm thru with Shooter.

I do not have a "'tude." If you read a tad bit of assertiveness into the last posts--yes, there was some. As I pointed out in the opening, I did not like how you suggested there was some "reason" for the suggested thread title. Do you care to answer what exactly you meant by "reveals much"? When your second post begins in such a way, it could be interpreted as an attempt to shift the discussion from the topic itself to the debator. This is especially so in the absence of your offering any substantive counter argument. There really was no reason for you to even say such a thing--it's not pertinent to the debate.

If I wanted to be picky...I could take issue with your "warning" me in the last sentence of the post in question, do not accuse me of something that you are in fact doing in your posts--i.e. "having a 'tude." Anyway--I choose not to make an issue of it, and in no way could anything I wrote be construed as "ridicule" so please stop with the insulting characterizations and innuendos.

Further--in a debate, it is customary to offer counter arguments and valid sources. Merely offering opinion, and citing "friends who are scholors" doesn't work. That's why I asked for "substantive evidence." Since this third post of yours now is accusing me of "sarcasm" and characterizing my posts as "unbecoming of a religious debate," I believe that what is going on here is you are attempting to shift the discussion from the debate to the debator. If that's not the case--stop talking about me, and talk about the topic.

I eagerly await discussion of the topic....

 

[niftydrifty]

Ok, I'm back. before we continue, I realize I may be making assumptions about what you mean by "literal," and "literally."

Can you define what you mean by these terms when you speak about the eucharist?

 

[Felicity]

Ok, I'm back. before we continue, I realize I may be making assumptions about what you mean by "literal," and "literally."

Can you define what you mean by these terms when you speak about the Eucharist?

When I say the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. I mean it's his flesh--it's NOT symbolically his flesh--it IS his flesh. There are symbolic associations to the liturgy, but the thing that was bread and wine is NO LONGER bread and wine after consecration, but it still appears physically bread and wine, yet it is literally Jesus' Body and Blood.

Further, the disciples in John 6 who heard Jesus say that His Flesh is True Food--understood him literally. To eat someone's flesh was to ridicule and debase if was meant symbolically--the disciples knew he was not speaking symbolically or metaphorically--they KNEW he was saying they would have to EAT HIM--that is why many left. WE know Jesus meant it literally because Jesus let them leave without clarification. Jesus would not allow a silly misunderstanding to confuse someone to the point that they would turn away from him--Jesus explained errors in understanding when it caused people to question his divinity.

I mean literally in terms of the disciples heard Jesus words and took them in the DENOTATIVE sense.

 

[Felicity]

PS--Glad to see you back!

 

[niftydrifty]

When I say the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. I mean it's his flesh--it's NOT symbolically his flesh--it IS his flesh. There are symbolic associations to the liturgy, but the thing that was bread and wine is NO LONGER bread and wine after consecration, but it still appears physically bread and wine, yet it is literally Jesus' Body and Blood.

Further, the disciples in John 6 who heard Jesus say that His Flesh is True Food--understood him literally. To eat someone's flesh was to ridicule and debase if was meant symbolically--the disciples knew he was not speaking symbolically or metaphorically--they KNEW he was saying they would have to EAT HIM--that is why many left. WE know Jesus meant it literally because Jesus let them leave without clarification. Jesus would not allow a silly misunderstanding to confuse someone to the point that they would turn away from him--Jesus explained errors in understanding when it caused people to question his divinity.

I mean literally in terms of the disciples heard Jesus words and took them in the DENOTATIVE sense.

It is really, literally, His flesh? the same molecules that inhabited Christ's flesh are now present in the bread that you eat?

ps. thanks!

 

[Felicity]

It is really, literally, His flesh? the same molecules that inhabited Christ's flesh are now present in the bread that you eat?

ps. thanks!

Yes....REALLY LITERALLY his Flesh....The ESSENCE--the SUBSTANCE of Jesus is there in the totality of his nature--body, blood, soul, and divinity, but the "accidents" --the external appearences of the bread and wine-- remain. So, if you look at the consecrated host/cup--it smells, tastes, appears....all as if it were breadand wine--but because I believe the words of Christ when he says "This IS my body--this IS my blood"--I believe He is substantually present in the Eucharist.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ.

 

[Felicity]

Hey nifty....

I got your PM...I understand you're busy, but....:2wave: ....don't fergit, 'kay?

 

[niftydrifty]

well, I just haven't had any long patches of time with which to give this topic the kind of attention I've wanted to. but here goes anyway.

I have a Greek dictionary where the words are in Greek characters. I have been meaning to do some research, but as you can imagine, with Greek characters, it is pretty slow going for me. and no, I haven't asked anyone what any words mean. I'll ask you. would you mind explaining what is meant by the word trogo, which you brought up? after all, this is a debate and it seems to me this is the only thing you have making your case.

reason being, I've heard you explain how church fathers' writings (in English) containing words such as "true" and "real" and how they undeniably must be referring to literal flesh. but in explaining how it is so, you without exception engage in a highwire acrobat act using different words yourself. if it where so apparent and obvious, it wouldn't be necessary for you to claim that so-and-so meant "literal" when every translation you paste says "true" or "real." for believers, spirituality is true and real.

to insist or point out that the Roman Catholic Church is the one church and that it goes back as long as it does is a non argument, irrelevant to the topic. transubtantiation is just another false teaching, to go along with a very long history of false doctrines unsupported by scripture, ... including the use of Latin as the language of prayer and worship, the papacy and papal infallibility, worship of relics, celibacy, the inquisition, etc.

aside from all this word business, comes the clincher: what evidence, aside from anyone's word that it does, do you have that the bread or the wafers actually is converted via transubstantiation into the body or the substance or the essence of Christ?

 

[Felicity]

I have a Greek dictionary where the words are in Greek characters. I have been meaning to do some research, but as you can imagine, with Greek characters, it is pretty slow going for me. and no, I haven't asked anyone what any words mean. I'll ask you. would you mind explaining what is meant by the word trogo, which you brought up? after all, this is a debate and it seems to me this is the only thing you have making your case.

Perhaps in the delay of response, you forget I addressed it in the post in which I used the word and cited a source? Go back and look.

Here's another-- Trogo - Greek Lexicon

reason being, I've heard you explain how church fathers' writings (in English) containing words such as "true" and "real" and how they undeniably must be referring to literal flesh. but in explaining how it is so, you without exception engage in a highwire acrobat act using different words yourself.

What re you referring to and why the derisive tone?

if it where so apparent and obvious, it wouldn't be necessary for you to claim that so-and-so meant "literal" when every translation you paste says "true" or "real." for believers, spirituality is true and real.

As in everything, language is merely a symbolic tool to express reality. The Biblical meaning of EAT is clear via the word used to describe the "eating"--it is to gnaw--a physical reality is described--NOT a spiritual reality.

to insist or point out that the Roman Catholic Church is the one church and that it goes back as long as it does is a non argument, irrelevant to the topic. transubtantiation is just another false teaching, to go along with a very long history of false doctrines unsupported by scripture, ... including the use of Latin as the language of prayer and worship, the papacy and papal infallibility, worship of relics, celibacy, the inquisition, etc.

Are you attempting to muddy the water by deflecting to other items with which you take issue? The topic is the "real" presence of which we have determined I mean a PHYSICAL reality. This is a poor debate maneuver. If you don't want to debate the issue, that's fine. I've waited this long and I am confident in my position. I do not intend to be argumentative or lured into a pisssing match--The facts are the facts and I am well versed on this topic.

aside from all this word business, comes the clincher: what evidence, aside from anyone's word that it does, do you have that the bread or the wafers actually is converted via transubstantiation into the body or the substance or the essence of Christ?

Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced? What can I do with that admission?

 

[Felicity]

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C006.htm#V50

Searching for trwgwn...
John 06:54
John 06:56
John 06:57
John 06:58
John 13:18

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

 

[Felicity]

Hey Nifty.....

Does the loooooong silence mean you cede the debate?

 

[niftydrifty]

Hey Nifty.....

Does the loooooong silence mean you cede the debate?

of course not. my silence means I'd given up discussing this with you. sharing information and having a healthy debate is quite a bit different than what you have done here. post number 19 was really a doozy....

I respond directly to absurd statements you'd made about the church, and according to you, I am "muddying" the issue. I am "deflecting." :roll:

and "why the derisive tone," ... as if I am the only person here that's used one. as if I was the one that began using one here. as if I had used a derisive tone at all.

Felicity, I asked you for evidence. you gave none, other than the words of Christ. hasn't it been obvious that we have an honest difference of opinion here about what the words of Christ mean? isn't that what this debate ought to be about?

You say, "Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced?"

LOL, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that I have a different opinion of what the passages mean. (just as "I am the bread" wasn't exactly literal.) and I'm also suggesting that you have no evidence to back up your opinion. hence these ridiculous tactics you employ.

it became clear in post #19 that you assume one meaning. RCC's doctrine comes first, and your beliefs follow.

the word for eat may be used in non-literal ways:

John 4:32-34 "But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him [ought] to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

chew on that, Ms. "I am well versed on this topic."

I hope you don't choke on it. I hope you find humility, and learn to be more objective.

 

[Felicity]

of course not. my silence means I'd given up discussing this with you. sharing information and having a healthy debate is quite a bit different than what you have done here. post number 19 was really a doozy....

I respond directly to absurd statements you'd made about the church, and according to you, I am "muddying" the issue. I am "deflecting." :roll:

and "why the derisive tone," ... as if I am the only person here that's used one. as if I was the one that began using one here. as if I had used a derisive tone at all.

Felicity, I asked you for evidence. you gave none, other than the words of Christ. hasn't it been obvious that we have an honest difference of opinion here about what the words of Christ mean? isn't that what this debate ought to be about?

You say, "Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced?"

LOL, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that I have a different opinion of what the passages mean. (just as "I am the bread" wasn't exactly literal.) and I'm also suggesting that you have no evidence to back up your opinion. hence these ridiculous tactics you employ.

it became clear in post #19 that you assume one meaning. RCC's doctrine comes first, and your beliefs follow.

the word for eat may be used in non-literal ways:

John 4:32-34 "But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him [ought] to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

chew on that, Ms. "I am well versed on this topic."

I hope you don't choke on it. I hope you find humility, and learn to be more objective.

This is quite typical of your so-called "debate" style. Please take your own advice.:2wave:

LOL, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that I have a different opinion of what the passages mean. (just as "I am the bread" wasn't exactly literal.) and I'm also suggesting that you have no evidence to back up your opinion. hence these ridiculous tactics you employ.

it became clear in post #19 that you assume one meaning. RCC's doctrine comes first, and your beliefs follow.

the word for eat may be used in non-literal ways:

I did give specific evidence as to the "particular" word for "eat" that was used. It is not simply "eat" like the word we use in English--it is gnaw, chew, eat as in masticating specifically and can only be used to mean something literal. I'm sorry that you choose "to walk away" from the truth--just as those doubting disciples did in John 6. I hope you eventually come to recognize it, however.

 

[niftydrifty]

This is quite typical of your so-called "debate" style. Please take your own advice.:2wave:

I did give specific evidence as to the "particular" word for "eat" that was used. It is not simply "eat" like the word we use in English--it is gnaw, chew, eat as in masticating specifically and can only be used to mean something literal. I'm sorry that you choose "to walk away" from the truth--just as those doubting disciples did in John 6. I hope you eventually come to recognize it, however.

there is only one truth. but there are many facts:

• 
  more than one word for "eat" are used interchangeably throughout John's gospel.

• you parrot a gazillion catholic apologist websites and somehow it makes you "well versed in the subject."

• Augustine of Hippo once wrote "believe, and you have eaten."

• "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." - John 6:63

• You have no evidence that transubstantiation is real, other than your own misunderstanding.

• lots of stuff in the bible sounds literal, and lots of deluded people take it that way.

• etc.

post #19 was a doozy alright. I didn't think it was possible, but you've surpassed it here. just after I state (sincerely) that I hope you will find humility ... you go on to liken yourself, and your opinions, to Christ's message.

seek professional help immediately.

 

[Felicity]

there is only one truth. but there are many facts:

• 
  more than one word for "eat" are used interchangeably throughout John's gospel.

• you parrot a gazillion catholic apologist websites and somehow it makes you "well versed in the subject."

• Augustine of Hippo once wrote "believe, and you have eaten."

• "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." - John 6:63

• You have no evidence that transubstantiation is real, other than your own misunderstanding.

• lots of stuff in the bible sounds literal, and lots of deluded people take it that way.

• etc.

post #19 was a doozy alright. I didn't think it was possible, but you've surpassed it here. just after I state (sincerely) that I hope you will find humility ... you go on to liken yourself, and your opinions, to Christ's message.

seek professional help immediately.

Do you feel safe expressing your true thoughts in the Basement? Are you comforted by the fact that most casual readers can't see what you're really like? What a hypocrit.:roll: You may think I need "professional help,"--you need "spiritual help." Your comments in the basement were disgusting.