COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[atpollard]

For over 1500 years, all accepted the inseparable Two Natures of Christ and thus could accept the Scriptures in the opening post without hesitation. But in the mid 16th century, Zwingli questioned that historic, ecumenical doctrine of The Two Natures of Christ and thus Real Presence.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed this issue in detail. It is IMPORTANT to remember that in 451, ALL Christians (all those bishops involved) accepted Real Presence in the Eucharist - the Zwinglianview were virtually unheard of at that time ...

Thank you for that, it was enlightening and informative.
Allow me to be VERY clear in my criticism.

With respect to Trans-anything (substantiation, substitution) or even the symbolic-only view of at least one Baptist Church I attended ... I am completely and utterly indifferent. I have many deep opinions on the issue of the sacrament of communion and I value it at one of the primary reasons for the existence of the local church, but I will gain and impart no grace by debating such matters that belong exclusively in the realm of God. So I have no opinion that I am willing to share on the ground you have chosen to trod.

That said, your historicity defense of a position seems a dangerous and flawed argument. Let's apply the same criteria to Petrine succession and the Bishop of Rome. How early was that believed? How widely accepted? How universally acknowledged? Should Lutherans, then, return to the mother church and apologize for rejecting the earliest councils for the radical new views of this contemporary of Zwingli, this German Monk named Luther? (I am obviously employing hyperbole to make a point).

My advice on this topic is two fold. Tradition and the writings of the fathers is important, but do not overvalue it ... the church did manage to get some things very wrong for over a thousand years. Second, beware in our rush to embrace the mystery of the divinity and spirit of Christ that we do not fall into the heresies of denying his humanity (both before and after his resurrection). I believe that Church Councils also dealt with that.

Truly, God Bless you all.

 

[Josiah]

Thank you for that, it was enlightening and informative.
Allow me to be VERY clear in my criticism.

With respect to Trans-anything (substantiation, substitution) or even the symbolic-only view of at least one Baptist Church I attended ...

My position is that ALL the attempts to distance from what Jesus said and Paul penned ("Trans"- anything, "subs" anything) is something I reject. I find no textual (or biblical or theological) reason to distance myself from what Jesus said AT ALL. I just accept all as true (not "spiritually" true or "metaphysically" true or "symbolicly" true or "if-spun-MY-way" true - just true). I accept "This..... is....... my...... body...... blood....." (while realizing the "is" applies to bread and wine as well after the Consecration). I just accept it. As is. No denials, no substituions, no philosophy, no spins. HOW it happens, I don't have a clue - and that couldn't matter less.

I can understand some who (with NOTHING in the context to so suggest) want to take this metaphorically - I just think that's ENTIRELY unnecessary and opens a "box" probably best not opened. I have a MUCH bigger problem with those whose entire position is "IT CAN'T BE!"

That said, your historicity defense of a position seems a dangerous and flawed argument.

I don't use that argument. I use "the words are" argument. But yes, those whose position is: "IT CAN'T BE SO!" must destroy Calcadon and the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ to do so (which, IMO, is a WHOLE lot more dangerous than simply spinning it metaphorically - insisting it COULD be "as is" true but it's not, it's metaphor). Yes, in THAT, there is Tradition - there is the Council of Calcadon that all Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and nearly all Evangelicals accept - and it often gets denied. True - I'm appealing to Traditions "take" on Scripture but then any Trinitarian also does that when speaking of the Trinity.

Let's apply the same criteria to Petrine succession and the Bishop of Rome

A point never affirmed by any Ecumenical Council and never accepted by any but one, singular, individual denomination (and it not made dogma until 1870) - a whole other enchilada. The Two Natures of Christ is obviously biblical (if we accept all the verses as just TRUE - that's it, the WORDS are TRUE) and accept the Council of Calcadon that affirmed that and accept ALL denominations for over 1000 years on that (and nearly all for 1500 years - through now).



Pax Christi

 

[Josiah]

SATIRE...... just SATIRE....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pKrwnn_2s

 

[Rens]

According to the Council of Calcadon (accepted by virtually all Christians - Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic) Christ's body could ALWAYS be everywhere. But in any case, we agree it NOW can. So can it be present.... say..... with the bread and wine in Communion so that what Jesus said is fully true: This is my body? Is that possible, in your opinion?

Just a historical point: All Christians accepted that it is true until a man named Zwingli in the 16th Century questioned it. Not saying that makes it true but it does make it historicallty accepted - universally, 100% - until the mid 1500"s.

No, because He lives and when He said that to the disciples He hadn't even died yet and if you eat an animal you eat a dead body. His is transformed now. So then it would have to change to the body He had when he died 2000 years ago.
He is present though, even if 2 or 3 gather. In their midst, like He was with the disciples, alive.

 

[Josiah]

No, because He lives and when He said that to the disciples He hadn't even died yet and if you eat an animal you eat a dead body. His is transformed now. So then it would have to change to the body He had when he died 2000 years ago.
He is present though, even if 2 or 3 gather. In their midst, like He was with the disciples, alive.

So, before His resurrection, the Two Natures were DIFFERENT. How so? What verse states that? When did this "different two natures" begin and end?

And is your position that at the Last Supper His body and blood actually were NOT but now they ARE because now He can be anywhere He wants to be?

 

[Rens]

So, before His resurrection, the Two Natures were DIFFERENT. How so? What verse states that? When did this "different two natures" begin and end?

And is your position that at the Last Supper His body and blood actually were NOT but now they ARE because now He can be anywhere He wants to be?

No. I just say if He said in His alive body to the disciples: this is my body that is broken for you then that bread didnt change into His body, cause He was there with His body, it didn't all of a sudden disappear and turn into the bread. Now His body is different, glorified, it can't die and shouldn't, He died once for all, so you can't eat that.

 

[Rens]

Looked it up.

This is My body" is the Figure Metaphor: and the Figure lies in the Verb "IS", which, as in this case, always means "represents", and must always be so expressed. It can never mean "is changed into". Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb "represents" can always be substituted for "is". For example:
"The field is (or represents) the world" (Matthew 13:38).
"The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).
"The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:39).
"The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).
"The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9).
"This cup is (represents) the new covenant" (1Corinthians 11:25).
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?" (1Corinthians 10:16).

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app159.html

it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matthew 16:18, the Pronoun "this" is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine.
So here: the Pronoun "this" is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos (= bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter).
In like manner, when He said (in verse 28) "this is my blood of the New Covenant"; "this", being Neuter, refers to poterion (= cup) ¹ and not to oinos (= wine), which is Masculine, and means:—"This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins".
For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31—34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all, for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39).

 

[Tigger]

It always amazes me how modern scholars interpret koine Greek better than the collective ancient writings of those that actually spoke the language at that time.

 

[atpollard]

It always amazes me how modern scholars interpret koine Greek better than the collective ancient writings of those that actually spoke the language at that time.

Which church father writing contradicts what Rens posted about Greek tenses?

 

[Tigger]

Which church father writing contradicts what Rens posted about Greek tenses?

All the ECF's writings attest to the real presence of Chirst in the elements of the Eucharist. The question is why is that and why don't they mention that the elements are purely symbolic as being the counter argument made on this thread?

 

[atpollard]

All the ECF's writings attest to the real presence of Chirst in the elements of the Eucharist. The question is why is that and why don't they mention that the elements are purely symbolic as being the counter argument made on this thread?

You should reread post #27.
I have not been following the positions close enough to keep track of who believes what, but it does not explicitly state that it is all symbolic. It DOES provide valuable clues how the Greek grammar is different from the English grammar of the translation which is valuable and is ignored at great personal peril if one wishes to understand exactly what is being said by the original speaker and writer.

I applaud anyone who exerts the effort to learn what was actually said in the quest for what was actually meant.
If all you are interested in is scripture pong, then just quote from some church father that supports your position and ignore the Greek grammar.
If you want to know what the fathers you respect are talking about, then see what the grammar says and then read what they wrote.

Personally, I think that the whole Last Supper really needs to be viewed through the lens of a Jewish Passover meal, then the significance of the cups drank and those not drank can be seen in even greater depth. It was not just any piece of bread that was broken and given out. Above and beyond that, Jesus departed from the traditional meal in some important ways that convey foreshadowing of much of the later letters of Paul. Overarching all of this is the amazing past-present-future aspect of the promise (involving all three persons of the Trinity) and the deep meaning of the actions (BOTH symbolic and spiritual and physical) of the Communion Table to the Local Church and the Invisible Church.

However, I do not sense that this is what this topic exists to discuss, so I choose to step back and leave you to your debate on the meaning of the elements and the nature of their transformation or mystery or whatever exactly it is that you all are debating.

 

[atpollard]

All the ECF's writings attest to the real presence of Chirst in the elements of the Eucharist. The question is why is that and why don't they mention that the elements are purely symbolic as being the counter argument made on this thread?

Two small points (hopefully on topic):
1. I take it from your response that none contradict the statements made of tenses in Biblical Greek (since your response mentions none).
2. It is rather easy to say 'All the ECF's writings', but you have not provided even a single quote from a single writing to back up your claim. I note that it has gone from 'almost all' to 'all' ECF since the last time the 'Church Father' card was played. So this question has two parts:
2a. Do you really mean ALL early church fathers support the real presence of the elements in the Eucharist? Not even one held a different opinion.
2b. If I go through the effort of reading every post in this topic from the beginning, will I find even a single quote from an Early Church Father? Is this even a legitimate 'appeal to authority' argument, or is it unsupported rhetoric?

Thank you for putting up with my attempts to follow the conversation.

 

[Rens]

This is copy pasted but interesting:
(lol the opinion of church fathers dont mean much to me, Mr. Google on the other hand...)

I am an amateur at this, but I think that 2 Samuel 23 gives us a big clue as to how to interpret Jesus' remarks. Jesus's language appears to be the same language used by David who refused to drink of the water that the soldiers brought him because they had risked their lives to bring it to him, and what they brought to David was not worth them losing their lives. To drink the water they brought would be to drink their blood. This is in sharp contrast to the situation where Jesus brings salvation, and those who will not drink of the living water and will not accept that offering (i.e., who will not drink his blood and eat his flesh,) can nothing to do with Jesus. There is no other way than to accept that which Jesus has brought; so the gift is more than worthy of the sacrifice that he made for us. We must accept his gift and, in doing so, drink of his blood.

2 Samuel 23:15 David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!” 16 So the three mighty warriors broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the Lord. 17 “Far be it from me, Lord, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7816/eat-my-flesh-and-drink-my-blood

 

[psalms 91]

Never saw rthat thanks. Interesting

 

[Tigger]

Previously as an Evangelical I used to believe the sacraments were only symbolic but that was due to the fact I had only heard one side of the argument. But once I heard the debates from both sides I realized they had it wrong not only from scripture (which when you get into the Greek it is stated infactically) but the church starting from the Apostles through scriptures and training up their successors the ECFs but the whole history of the church taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist until the 1600's. The most you might be able to scrap up is a modern day supposed scholar doing some Olympic level gymnastics with some ancient text that had never been interpreted that way before. Anyway you want some quotes from the ECFs? Here's what a two minute internet search brought up.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which 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 THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…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 to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES 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…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

 

[Brighten04]

Here is my uneducated by scholars comment.

You are what you eat is a proverb quoted by our elders for generations. Even though I worship with a Baptist assembly, and they view the communion bread and wine as figurative (I think), I see it as literal and I take it as literal flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus. Why? It is because Lord Jesus said, this IS. I don't fight with my fellow worshipers about what they think it is. Jesus said we are He. We are His body. If you can believe that we are His body and He is the head, you will see the whole person. Why did God tell the Israelites to eat the passover lamb.? My answer is so they can partake of the innocence of the lamb. When we take the bread and wine, we become one with Lord Jesus Christ. You are what you eat. This is how I believe it, this is how I receive it. No denomination can make me change my mind about it. Jesus said He is the bread of life. Now if He said He is bread, then, praise God, He is bread.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

 

[Pedrito]

1. Pedrito commends Rens for her excellent investigation presented in Post #27 on Page 3.

2. In response to Lämmchen’s question in Post #12 on Page 2 regarding Jesus’ present bodily form:
“But it's still a body, right?”,

Pedrito points to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:44:
“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”

So what body was Jesus referring to during the "last supper"? Was it his then-existing physical body, or was it his soon-to-be-raised spiritual body? Think about it. Either the body associated with the "real presence" didn't yet exist at that time, or it no longer exists now.

Pedrito acknowledges that the manna in the wilderness is referred to as angels’ food in Psalm 78:25, and spiritual food and drink is referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:3,4. However, if there is unequivocal Scripture revealing the reality of “real presence” (however expressed), Pedrito is unaware of it, but is open to the presentation of wisdom in that regard.

3. Snerfle in Post #19 on Page 2 exhibited great wisdom, possibly beyond his years, definitely between his ears.

 

[user1234]

1. Pedrito commends Rens for her excellent investigation presented in Post #27 on Page 3.

2. In response to Lämmchen’s question in Post #12 on Page 2 regarding Jesus’ present bodily form:
“But it's still a body, right?”,

Pedrito points to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:44:
“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”

So what body was Jesus referring to during the "last supper"? Was it his then-existing physical body, or was it his soon-to-be-raised spiritual body? Think about it. Either the body associated with the "real presence" didn't yet exist at that time, or it no longer exists now.

Pedrito acknowledges that the manna in the wilderness is referred to as angels’ food in Psalm 78:25, and spiritual food and drink is referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:3,4. However, if there is unequivocal Scripture revealing the reality of “real presence” (however expressed), Pedrito is unaware of it, but is open to the presentation of wisdom in that regard.

3. Snerfle in Post #19 on Page 2 exhibited great wisdom, possibly beyond his years, definitely between his ears.

Snerfle tips his hat to Pedrito and says, 'How kind of you to say that. Gracias, señor.'

Snerfle is considering changing his position.

Snerfle wonders why Pedrito speaks in the third person.

Sometimes Snerfle is beside himself, too. :roll:

 

[atpollard]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

Rather than invest a great deal of time in all of your quotes, I decided to start with the first Church Father on your list. I was shocked to find that none of the quotes that you actually provided appear to support your position.

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

This quote seems to be a beautiful proclaimation that Ignatius values living to serve his lord Jesus Christ more than any earthly pleasure or even his own life. It states quite clearly that Jesus Blood is "love incorruptible" which is not even close to stating that the wine in the communion cup is Jesus' literal blood.

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

The critical importance here is that the church must take care to use ONE EUCHARIST because there is ONE flesh of our lord Jesus. The first point that springs to mind is that nearly every church (local) violates exactly what he said because they hand out little pre-cut wafers. It is ironic that the church that I attended (and I have attended a wide variety) that railed most strongly against this, even going so far as to institute a communion with a single wafer broken for the whole congregation, was a Southern Baptist Church that viewed it at completely symbolic. Their complaint was that individual wafers destroyed the symbolism and word-picture that Christ created of one body of believers completely united in him through his body (incarnation) and blood (crucifixion) living inside of them. One Christ, one body, many members joined at the communion table.

In any event, notice the emphasis above on ONE Eucharist, ONE flesh (Jesus), ONE cup (emphasis on union, not blood), ONE altar, ONE bishop ... this text is about the unity of the body, not the literal flesh and blood in the wafer and cup.

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

Now this is just embarrassing. You do know what the Gnostics believed that made them anathema to the Church of Jesus Christ, don't you? They denied that Jesus had a body. They believed that Jesus was fully God, but was not a man. Therefore they rejected the Eucharist as the 'Flesh of our savior Jesus Christ' both in the literal and symbolic sense. They did not believe that the historic Jesus had any flesh at all. Thus the statement you placed in capitals has nothing to do with Eucharist actually or symbolically being the flesh of Jesus and is an affirmation that in the Eucharist Christians acknowledge that Jesus really did come in the flesh.

I don't need to twist any scriptures, your selected quotes have nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

 

[Josiah]

Rather than invest a great deal of time in all of your quotes, I decided to start with the first Church Father on your list. I was shocked to find that none of the quotes that you actually provided appear to support your position.


This quote seems to be a beautiful proclaimation that Ignatius values living to serve his lord Jesus Christ more than any earthly pleasure or even his own life. It states quite clearly that Jesus Blood is "love incorruptible" which is not even close to stating that the wine in the communion cup is Jesus' literal blood.


The critical importance here is that the church must take care to use ONE EUCHARIST because there is ONE flesh of our lord Jesus. The first point that springs to mind is that nearly every church (local) violates exactly what he said because they hand out little pre-cut wafers. It is ironic that the church that I attended (and I have attended a wide variety) that railed most strongly against this, even going so far as to institute a communion with a single wafer broken for the whole congregation, was a Southern Baptist Church that viewed it at completely symbolic. Their complaint was that individual wafers destroyed the symbolism and word-picture that Christ created of one body of believers completely united in him through his body (incarnation) and blood (crucifixion) living inside of them. One Christ, one body, many members joined at the communion table.

In any event, notice the emphasis above on ONE Eucharist, ONE flesh (Jesus), ONE cup (emphasis on union, not blood), ONE altar, ONE bishop ... this text is about the unity of the body, not the literal flesh and blood in the wafer and cup.


Now this is just embarrassing. You do know what the Gnostics believed that made them anathema to the Church of Jesus Christ, don't you? They denied that Jesus had a body. They believed that Jesus was fully God, but was not a man. Therefore they rejected the Eucharist as the 'Flesh of our savior Jesus Christ' both in the literal and symbolic sense. They did not believe that the historic Jesus had any flesh at all. Thus the statement you placed in capitals has nothing to do with Eucharist actually or symbolically being the flesh of Jesus and is an affirmation that in the Eucharist Christians acknowledge that Jesus really did come in the flesh.

I respectfully disagree. I think all the quotes Tigger offered clearly show an affirmation of Real Presence.

I don't need to twist any scriptures.

This would be my foremost reason to accept Real Presence. This view simply accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned, simply embracing it as literally true - no need to spin it, no need for metaphors or symbols, no need for denials. Kind of direct to just embrace that the meaning of is is is here (and I see no textual, biblical or theological reason to even consider that it might not).


I don't deny the POSSIBILITY that a metaphor might be found here.... I just see no reason whatsoever (biblical, historical, theological or otherwise) to think so - in fact, such seems rather problematic. I hesitate to regard such a view as clearly heretical - just weak, unhistorical and unnecessary. My 'problem' tends to come in WHY they reject literally what Jesus said, Paul penned and for 1500 years all Christians affirmed: often the rejection of the literal words flows from a rejection of Chalcadon and the Two Natures of Christ, a rejection of the communication of attributes or worse; I can "live" with their rejection of the literal words, it's WHY they do that is often very disturbing and dangerous. In my experience, rejecting Real Presence isn't so much the problem as WHY they do.


I find it interesting that in the discussion of this (which I've had many times over the past 12 years or so, even before I left the RCC), Catholics usually RUN from their own denomination's new, unique dogma.... either by staying out entirely or, less likely, by TRYING to pretend their RCC is actually in agreement with the EOC (or even Lutherans!!!!) rather than support the new 1551 unique dogma of Transubstantiation.

You're the Calvinist expert, but MY understanding is that Calvin is impossible to pen down on this point..... while he clearly rejected Transubstantiation, he also doesn't seem to accept Zwingli's view either (now common among modern "Evangelicals" and often modern Calvinists). TODAY, I understand, Calvinists tend to side with Zwingli on this - but Calvin himself did not. Calvin gives some things that show he's weak on the Two Natures and this impacts his view of the Eucharist but as I understand it, he stopped short of Zwingli's "metaphor" view flowing from Zwingli's clear rejection of Chalcadon and errant view of the Two Natures. I frankly think that both of them - just like the Catholic Church at the same time - just WAY over-thought the whole thing, subjecting the words of Jesus and Paul to their own very WRONG concepts of physics and their own flawed philosophies and "logic". They would not have threatened the critical, foundational doctrine of the Two Natures if they had just done what all Christians did for 1500 years: just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, accepting that the meaning of is is is, leaving all the "HOW" and physics questions to mystery (there's a reason why "Real Presence" until the Reformation was simply called "the MYSTERY of the Eucharist." As my Greek Orthodox friend says of BOTH the Catholic Church and Zwinglian Protestants, "They refuse to leave well enough alone, they refuse to shut up." She reminds me: much horrible stuff flows from people "over-thinking" and insisting Jesus must be wrong because it doesn't jibe with THEIR thinking.



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah



.