Communion - Symbolic or Real?

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In 1551...

The council of Trent says (in English translation from the Latin text):
SESSION THE THIRTEENTH,
Being the third under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the eleventh day of October, MDLI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
The sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate, and nuncios of the Apostolic See presiding therein, although the end for which It assembled, not without the special guidance and governance of the Holy Ghost, was, that It might set forth the true and ancient doctrine touching faith and the sacraments, and might apply a remedy to all the heresies, and the other most grievous troubles with which the Church of God is now miserably agitated, and rent into many and various parts; yet, even from the outset, this especially has been the object of Its desires, that It might pluck up by the roots those tares of execrable errors and schisms, with which the enemy hath, in these our calamitous times, oversown the doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred and holy Eucharist, which our Saviour, notwithstanding, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity, with which He would fain have all Christians be mentally joined and united together. Wherefore, this sacred and holy Synod delivering here, on this venerable and divine sacrament of the Eucharist, that sound and genuine doctrine, which the Catholic Church,-instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and by His apostles, and taught by the Holy Ghost, who day by day brings to her mind all truth, has always retained, and will preserve even to the end of the world, forbids all the faithful of Christ, to presume to believe, teach, or preach henceforth concerning the holy Eucharist, otherwise than as is explained and defined in this present decree.

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant - that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.​

The explanation offered is an explanation for why we see bread and wine, taste it, smell it, and so forth despite it the truth that it is the body and the blood of the Lord.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The council of Trent also says the following (in the same decree 13).

CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is a problem with those who allow themselves to be taught by men and religion, but not by Holy Spirit.


I'm accepting the words. (See post 57) You are replacing Jesus' words with those of a man. You are inserting a mans words that aren't ones Jesus stated.

You are parroting, echoing a man. His name was Zwingli. You are parroting verbatim a view he invented in the 16th Century in order to reject the words of the text. This he did because he leaned toward a horrible, condemned heresy - Nestorianism.




.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is a problem with those who allow themselves to be taught by men and religion, but not by Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to teach us and the Word says This IS my body. This IS my blood. It's men who have turned away and taught otherwise saying Jesus didn't say that.
 

visionary

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,824
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Messianic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
It is against the Law of God to eat, drink blood..... Nothing God does would be in contrary to His own Laws.
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
It is against the Law of God to eat, drink blood..... Nothing God does would be in contrary to His own Laws.

Exactly, my friend.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is against the Law of God to eat, drink blood..... Nothing God does would be in contrary to His own Laws.

What is higher (1) the law, (2) the law giver?

If your answer is (2) the law giver then the dilemma constructed on your post is over. God can make laws and then make new ones as his purposes mature in creation.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
What is higher (1) the law, (2) the law giver?

If your answer is (2) the law giver then the dilemma constructed on your post is over. God can make laws and then make new ones as his purposes mature in creation.
God does not go against Himself ever,
 

visionary

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,824
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Messianic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
What is higher (1) the law, (2) the law giver?

If your answer is (2) the law giver then the dilemma constructed on your post is over. God can make laws and then make new ones as his purposes mature in creation.

Except for one little fact, God makes no mistakes, therefore needs no revision.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is against the Law of God to eat, drink blood..... Nothing God does would be in contrary to His own Laws.

Ah, but you have to remember in the Old Testament WHY it was forbidden....because blood gives life. Leviticus 17:11.

Now, since Christ has atoned for our sins, we can have life again all due to the cross and in Communion we receive His blood poured out for us Luke 22:20. We are no longer separated from life but receive it because of Jesus.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Also Acts 11:9b 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean'.

We are no longer under the OT but the NT.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
While that is true if you want to live longer you will follow the dietary prohibitions, it will add years to your life
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Also Acts 11:9b 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean'.

We are no longer under the OT but the NT.

:) Yes, exactly.

And it's not that God has changed, it's just that Jesus has fulfilled what God planned! The OT was a foreshadowing of things to come.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Except for one little fact, God makes no mistakes, therefore needs no revision.

Why would a change in the law mean God made mistakes?
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Ah, but you have to remember in the Old Testament WHY it was forbidden....because blood gives life. Leviticus 17:11.

Now, since Christ has atoned for our sins, we can have life again all due to the cross and in Communion we receive His blood poured out for us Luke 22:20. We are no longer separated from life but receive it because of Jesus.

It was forbidden for good reason. Eating blood, especially of certain animals, can make a person very sick, even kill them.

This is one reason chicken (although a clean animal according to the law) needs to be cooked thoroughly, and pork (unclean) - even when cooked properly can still make one sick if it's flesh contains pathogens (not strictly raised according to health and consumption standards), not to mention shelfish poisoning hasn't left us either....

The argument sounds nice, but I doubt any believer would put it to the test by eating a bit of raw chicken or pig that was in the habit of eating it's own excrement in the wild. Vulture delight, anyone? All foods are clean...so they say....
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Foods. Not people, and especially not the Lord.

I have considered putting you on ignore...but I think you are way too amusing in that proud spirit that you have. Please...continue.

Foods are clean, but not people, and "especially not the Lord". Lol - did you just call me dirty and the Lord too..."especially so"?
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
You claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was speaking symbolically when he said "this is my body", why is it symbolic?
It is symbolic because He was showing them some unleavened bread, which He ate as well.
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I have considered putting you on ignore...but I think you are way too amusing in that proud spirit that you have. Please...continue.

Foods are clean, but not people, and "especially not the Lord". Lol - did you just call me dirty and the Lord too..."especially so"?
How ridiculous. Foods are clean. We can't eat people, least of all the Lord. Get it?

Nothing proud in understanding that. It's pride that doesn't see it.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is symbolic because He was showing them some unleavened bread, which He ate as well.

Yes, it was unleavened bread according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke but John doesn't mention that it is unleavened. So why is that relevant? Jesus said "take eat, this is my body" why do you say that the words of the Lord are symbolic? Is the bread not his body?
 
Top Bottom