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

[Lamb]

Thank you for your lengthy response but it did not answer my question of if you think Christ is stuck someplace? Isn't He God and isn't God everywhere?

Since you asked, I offer the following:

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

66. What are the Sacraments?
The Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals, appointed by God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.

67. Are both these, then, the Word and the Sacraments, designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
Yes truly; for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.

68. How many Sacraments has Christ appointed in the New Testament?
Two: Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.

****

75. How is it signified and sealed unto thee in the Holy Supper that thou dost partake of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross and all His benefits?
Thus; that Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, and has joined therewith these promises: First, that His body was offered, and broken on the cross for me, and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that, with His crucified body and shed blood, He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister, and taste with my mouth, the bread and cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.

76. What is it to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?
It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the suffering and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life; but moreover also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that although He is in heaven, and we on the earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are governed for ever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.

77. Where has Christ promised that He will thus feed and nourish believers with His body and blood, as certainly as they eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup?
In the institution of the Supper, which runs thus: The Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said: Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My blood: This do ye as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.

And this promise is repeated also by St. Paul, where he says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.

78. Do then the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ?
No: but as the water, in Baptism, is not changed into the blood of Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins itself, being only the divine token and assurance thereof, so also, in the Lord’s Supper, the sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though agreeably to the nature and usage of sacraments it is called the body of Christ.

79. Why then doth Christ call the bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the New Testament in His blood; and St. Paul, the communion of the body and blood of Christ?
Christ speaks thus not without great cause: namely, not only to teach us thereby, that, like as the bread and wine sustain this temporal life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink of our souls unto life eternal; but much more, by this visible sign and pledge to assure us, that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood, through the working of the Holy Ghost, as we receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of Him; and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own, as if we had ourselves suffered and done all in our own person.

While our Lutheran and Catholic brothers will certainly disagree, can you honestly say that what 'Calvinists' believe somehow dishonors God?

 

[Josiah]

Thank you for your lengthy response but it did not answer my question of if you think Christ is stuck someplace? Isn't He God and isn't God everywhere?

If Jesus is 100% God... and God is omnipresent..... then the Bible is right when it indicates that Jesus is everywhere. It says JESUS will be with us always (and JESUS is 100% man/human in addition to 100% God).... not only is He present everywhere but also in every time, thus the Bible says JESUS was present at Creation (and JESUS is 100% human/man in addition to 100% God).


I can accept that beginning less than 500 years ago, a man came up with the idea that Jesus and Paul are using a metaphor here. NO ONE even entertained that thought for 1500 years until Zwingli did. And there is NOTHING textually, biblically or theologically to remotely suggest such. But yes, grammatically, it's a theoretical possibility. My "problem" with that new theory is not so much in the theory as in the REASONS given for it - they tend to deny Scripture, deny the Councils of Nicea and Chalcadon, deny the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ and of the Trinity.



Thank you


Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Christ's body rose from the grave, walked talked, even ate among us, went up into heaven, is coming again. His blood was shed at the cross.

Did Jesus speak falsely when He promised to be with us always? Did He misspeak with He promised that where two or three believers are gathered together, He will be with them? Was Jesus being deceitful because actually He is in heaven?



- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

Thank you for your lengthy response but it did not answer my question of if you think Christ is stuck someplace? Isn't He God and isn't God everywhere?

Q. Do I think that Christ is stuck someplace?
A. No.

Q. Is Jesus God?
A. Yes.

Q. Is God everywhere?
A. Yes.

Sorry, I thought you wanted to know what Calvinists and other Reformed believers who do not believe they are literally eating human flesh and drinking blood at the communion table actually do believe. Your questions were far simpler to answer.

 

[atpollard]

Did Jesus speak falsely when He promised to be with us always? Did He misspeak with He promised that where two or three believers are gathered together, He will be with them? Was Jesus being deceitful because actually He is in heaven?

- Josiah
.

Did Jesus misspeak when he said he went away to prepare a place and would return for us?
Was there really an ascension? (If he is still everywhere ... including here ... in bodily form)

Serious question: Who is the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lamb]

Did Jesus misspeak when he said he went away to prepare a place and would return for us?
Was there really an ascension? (If he is still everywhere ... including here ... in bodily form)

Serious question: Who is the Holy Spirit?

Of course there was an ascension. Just like in the Old Testament where God met Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19) and yet God is everywhere. We don't limit God unless He has given limitations. In Communion He said This is my body.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank you for your lengthy response but it did not answer my question of if you think Christ is stuck someplace? Isn't He God and isn't God everywhere?

I am not sure if Jesus is ubiquitous. God is. And Jesus is God. But your question is about Jesus' body & blood, right? You want to know if Jesus' body & blood is ubiquitous, right?

 

[Lamb]

I am not sure if Jesus is ubiquitous. God is. And Jesus is God. But your question is about Jesus' body & blood, right? You want to know if Jesus' body & blood is ubiquitous, right?

Didn't Jesus say I am with you always?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Didn't Jesus say I am with you always?

Yes. Do you think that means that Christ is present everywhere exactly as he is present in the holy Eucharist?

 

[Lamb]

Yes. Do you think that means that Christ is present everywhere exactly as he is present in the holy Eucharist?

I do not know how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Just that He says This is and it is true.

 

[atpollard]

I can accept that beginning less than 500 years ago, a man came up with the idea that Jesus and Paul are using a metaphor here. NO ONE even entertained that thought for 1500 years until Zwingli did. And there is NOTHING textually, biblically or theologically to remotely suggest such. But yes, grammatically, it's a theoretical possibility. My "problem" with that new theory is not so much in the theory as in the REASONS given for it - they tend to deny Scripture, deny the Councils of Nicea and Chalcadon, deny the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ and of the Trinity.

I do not wish to challenge your views on the Eucharist, they are as valid as either the Catholic or the non-Lutheran Reformed views (In Essentials, Unity, in non-Essentials, Liberty and in all things Charity). I only wish to correct your perception about the start date of this difference of opinion:

The first Eucharistic controversy emerged from the Abbey at Corbie, headed by the Benedictine abbot Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859), who is honoured as a saint by the Church. In his writings De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, he taught a complete identity between the historical body of Christ, born of Mary, and the Eucharistic body of Christ, because that is the only body that can give salvation and that can be the Head of the Body of the redeemed which is the Church. However, this real body of Christ is present in the Eucharist in signs: it is eaten mystically and not in away that is perceptible to the senses. But the realism is strong in the thinking of Paschasius. When he explains how the body of the risen Christ could be present within a host, and even in so many hosts, he postulates a miraculous multiplication of the flesh of Christ analogous to the multiplication of the loaves as reported in the Gospels. He seems to say that the bread is replaced by the flesh of Christ; even though the appearance is that of bread, serving as a figura of the body of Christ. This is possible for him because of the work of the Holy Spirit, same way as His work of uniting the divine to human flesh in the incarnation.

The position of Paschasius seemed novel and exaggerated to Rabanus Maurus (+ 856), though he had no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. But he questioned the simple identification of what was eaten in the Eucharist with historical body of Christ. He thought that this would suggest that Jesus Christ actually died each time the Eucharist was celebrated. Those who did not agree with Paschasius distinguished between the historical body of Christ, the ecclesial body of Christ and the Eucharistic body of Christ. These three were special and distinct, so one cannot be talked about the way one talked the other.

In the same abbey, the monk Ratramnus (+ 868) also wrote under the same title as that of Paschasius saying that bread and wine are not changed by the consecration and thus are only images. He takes the terminology of Augustine of veritas/figura (cf. FEF 1524) as referring to the way things are known rather than to what is known: veritas is what is attained in direct perception; what is known “in figura” is what is known through the symbolism of what is directly perceived. According to this terminology the veritas of the Eucharist is bread; the body of Christ is in the bread “in figura”, because it is perceived in by us through the symbolism of the bread. The body of Christ is in heaven. That body is present in the Eucharist, not “bodily” not in “veritate” but in “figura”. The “veritas” of the body of Christ is what was present on earth during his life, on the cross when he was dying, and is in heaven now after the resurrection. It is a body animated by physical, biological life. It is not that corporeal life that is communicated in the Eucharist, says Ratramnus, the eating of it is spiritual, and the life that it gives is spiritual. The body is received in image; in mystery; and in power. The Eucharistic body, like the ecclesial body, is indeed, identical with the body born of Mary, but not with the corporeal form that it took on earth and now takes in heaven.

Ratramnus was accused of denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He did not intend to deny a true presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only opposed a complete identification of the historical body with the Eucharistic Body; he was reaffirming the Augustinian tradition that body is present in the Eucharist not to the senses but to faith. The elements are perceived by the sense, but the reality of the body is received in faith. Thus it was wrong to call the position of Ratramnus as “Symbolism.”

So rather than starting 500 years ago, it started at least 1200 years ago (and possibly further, this is just the first formal discussion of opposing positions that I have uncovered). Note that the quote above is from a Roman Catholic source, so it has a slightly RC emphasis on the debate.

Here is a statement that needs to be used with a great deal of caution, since I freely admit that it comes from an unreliable source: "Eucharistic theology as a branch of Christian theology developed during the medieval period; before that, during the early medieval period theological disputes had focussed mostly on questions of Christology." While not a 'smoking gun', it suggests that the 'Early Church Fathers' did not write in detail about the issue because they had more important fundamental matters under attack. The lack of commentary supports neither interpretation and all quotes on the Eucharist will ultimately trace to a text having nothing to do with our subject. I have already pointed out that at least one 'proof text' from an ECF is nothing of the sort. The man is looking forward to dying, not commenting on the Eucharist. The Body and Blood that he spoke of are real, because he expected to soon be in Heaven.

I reread Luther's writing on the Sacrament and was glad I had done do. I can see things to admire in the faith of both the Catholic Theologians and Luther, but I find myself simply disagreeing with both (I think in the case of Luther ... Frankly he spends more time telling me what it is not and leaving me slightly confused.

I also read some of Ratramnus work, but could not locate the whole book without applying to Oxford or buying it from Amazon. What I read was also worthwhile and something that I can agree with. He argues that the REAL presence in the sacrament is Spiritual, not Physical just as we (people) are the Spiritual, not Physical body of Christ and the Sacriment is a Spiritual, not Physical union between the believer and God. Thus it is more than "mere symbolism" but not the physical "pre or post resurrection flesh" of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Lamb]

Ratramnus did not believe in symbolism but (read quote below)...

He did not intend to deny a true presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only opposed a complete identification of the historical body with the Eucharistic Body; he was reaffirming the Augustinian tradition that body is present in the Eucharist not to the senses but to faith. The elements are perceived by the sense, but the reality of the body is received in faith. https://vatikos.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/first-eucharistic-controversy/

I do not wish to challenge your views on the Eucharist, they are as valid as either the Catholic or the non-Lutheran Reformed views (In Essentials, Unity, in non-Essentials, Liberty and in all things Charity). I only wish to correct your perception about the start date of this difference of opinion:

The first Eucharistic controversy emerged from the Abbey at Corbie, headed by the Benedictine abbot Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859), who is honoured as a saint by the Church. In his writings De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, he taught a complete identity between the historical body of Christ, born of Mary, and the Eucharistic body of Christ, because that is the only body that can give salvation and that can be the Head of the Body of the redeemed which is the Church. However, this real body of Christ is present in the Eucharist in signs: it is eaten mystically and not in away that is perceptible to the senses. But the realism is strong in the thinking of Paschasius. When he explains how the body of the risen Christ could be present within a host, and even in so many hosts, he postulates a miraculous multiplication of the flesh of Christ analogous to the multiplication of the loaves as reported in the Gospels. He seems to say that the bread is replaced by the flesh of Christ; even though the appearance is that of bread, serving as a figura of the body of Christ. This is possible for him because of the work of the Holy Spirit, same way as His work of uniting the divine to human flesh in the incarnation.

The position of Paschasius seemed novel and exaggerated to Rabanus Maurus (+ 856), though he had no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. But he questioned the simple identification of what was eaten in the Eucharist with historical body of Christ. He thought that this would suggest that Jesus Christ actually died each time the Eucharist was celebrated. Those who did not agree with Paschasius distinguished between the historical body of Christ, the ecclesial body of Christ and the Eucharistic body of Christ. These three were special and distinct, so one cannot be talked about the way one talked the other.

In the same abbey, the monk Ratramnus (+ 868) also wrote under the same title as that of Paschasius saying that bread and wine are not changed by the consecration and thus are only images. He takes the terminology of Augustine of veritas/figura (cf. FEF 1524) as referring to the way things are known rather than to what is known: veritas is what is attained in direct perception; what is known “in figura” is what is known through the symbolism of what is directly perceived. According to this terminology the veritas of the Eucharist is bread; the body of Christ is in the bread “in figura”, because it is perceived in by us through the symbolism of the bread. The body of Christ is in heaven. That body is present in the Eucharist, not “bodily” not in “veritate” but in “figura”. The “veritas” of the body of Christ is what was present on earth during his life, on the cross when he was dying, and is in heaven now after the resurrection. It is a body animated by physical, biological life. It is not that corporeal life that is communicated in the Eucharist, says Ratramnus, the eating of it is spiritual, and the life that it gives is spiritual. The body is received in image; in mystery; and in power. The Eucharistic body, like the ecclesial body, is indeed, identical with the body born of Mary, but not with the corporeal form that it took on earth and now takes in heaven.

Ratramnus was accused of denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He did not intend to deny a true presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only opposed a complete identification of the historical body with the Eucharistic Body; he was reaffirming the Augustinian tradition that body is present in the Eucharist not to the senses but to faith. The elements are perceived by the sense, but the reality of the body is received in faith. Thus it was wrong to call the position of Ratramnus as “Symbolism.”

So rather than starting 500 years ago, it started at least 1200 years ago (and possibly further, this is just the first formal discussion of opposing positions that I have uncovered). Note that the quote above is from a Roman Catholic source, so it has a slightly RC emphasis on the debate.

Here is a statement that needs to be used with a great deal of caution, since I freely admit that it comes from an unreliable source: "Eucharistic theology as a branch of Christian theology developed during the medieval period; before that, during the early medieval period theological disputes had focussed mostly on questions of Christology." While not a 'smoking gun', it suggests that the 'Early Church Fathers' did not write in detail about the issue because they had more important fundamental matters under attack. The lack of commentary supports neither interpretation and all quotes on the Eucharist will ultimately trace to a text having nothing to do with our subject. I have already pointed out that at least one 'proof text' from an ECF is nothing of the sort. The man is looking forward to dying, not commenting on the Eucharist. The Body and Blood that he spoke of are real, because he expected to soon be in Heaven.

I reread Luther's writing on the Sacrament and was glad I had done do. I can see things to admire in the faith of both the Catholic Theologians and Luther, but I find myself simply disagreeing with both (I think in the case of Luther ... Frankly he spends more time telling me what it is not and leaving me slightly confused.

I also read some of Ratramnus work, but could not locate the whole book without applying to Oxford or buying it from Amazon. What I read was also worthwhile and something that I can agree with. He argues that the REAL presence in the sacrament is Spiritual, not Physical just as we (people) are the Spiritual, not Physical body of Christ and the Sacriment is a Spiritual, not Physical union between the believer and God. Thus it is more than "mere symbolism" but not the physical "pre or post resurrection flesh" of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Rens]

“This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

“This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it?

It is a fact that the words vary from gospel to gospel and from the gospels to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. I wonder why. I guess that if the wording had been edited and checked for a few centuries then it would be uniform across all four sources. Anyway, Luke writes "And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.' " Luke 22:20 I suppose it is what is poured from the cup that is the new covenant in Christ's blood. Paul writes "In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' " 1Cor 11:25 That one is odd. Matthew and Mark both speak of "my blood of the new covenant"

It is interesting that neither Luke nor Paul was present at the last supper. Matthew was. Mark - according to tradition - received his gospel from Peter who was also present with Jesus at the last supper.

 

[atpollard]

Ratramnus did not believe in symbolism but (read quote below)...

He did not intend to deny a true presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only opposed a complete identification of the historical body with the Eucharistic Body; he was reaffirming the Augustinian tradition that body is present in the Eucharist not to the senses but to faith. The elements are perceived by the sense, but the reality of the body is received in faith. https://vatikos.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/first-eucharistic-controversy/

I agree that Ratramnus was NOT advocating symbolism, and stated as much in my post, but from the excerpts from his work and other commentaries on his work, it appears that he was advocating a spiritual presence of the divine nature of Christ only in the elements (to use our more modern terminology) and was opposed to the argument for the physical presence of the human body of Jesus Christ as present in the elements.

If you will go back and look at the actual Hiedelberg Chatechism that I posted, you will see some similarity in their interpretation of the scriptures relevant to the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper and in the Sacrament of Holy Communion mentioned in the Epistles. Thus the 'discussion' goes back further than 500 years.

 

[Lamb]

“This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it?

Matthew 26:28 reads Then He took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The THIS is pointing to My blood.

 

[Lamb]

I agree that Ratramnus was NOT advocating symbolism, and stated as much in my post, but from the excerpts from his work and other commentaries on his work, it appears that he was advocating a spiritual presence of the diving nature of Christ only in the elements (to use our more modern terminology) and was opposed to the argument for the physical presence of the human body of Jesus Christ as present in the elements.

If you will go back and look at the actual Hiedelberg Chatechism that I posted, you will see some similarity in their interpretation of the scriptures relevant to the body and blood of Christ at the Last Supper and in the Sacrament of Holy Communion mentioned in the Epistles. Thus the 'discussion' goes back further than 500 years.

I apologize. I thought your posting was trying to disqualify Josiah's who was speaking against metaphor language in regards to the Eucharist. Ratramnus believed in the Eucharistic meal as having body it's just that he believed slightly different than what the other monks believed.

he maintained at the same time that " according to the invisible substance, i.e., the power of the divine Word, the body and blood of Christ are truly present " (cap. xlix.). This shows that Ratramnus was more than a symbolist, and that he believed in a real presence which was received by the faithful through the spirit of God.

I haven't read much into him although from what I see, he's very close to a Lutheran stance.

 

[atpollard]

I haven't read much into him although from what I see, he's very close to a Lutheran stance.

I had a hard time following the details of the Lutheran position. Wikipedia (a VERY questionable source) suggested that Lutherans believed something close to co-substantiation, but objected to that term because of some other baggage attached to it. Luther's writings seemed to focus on rejecting other views that you did not believe more than what Lutherans believe and I got tripped up by a lot of his terminology that carried meanings different from I am accustomed to. So a simple question if I may:

Given these definitions ...
Symbolic Presence: No real presence in the Eucharist, just a representation ... like a photograph.
Real Spiritual Presence: The Spiritual Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist, but the biological body and blood of Christ are not.
Real Physical Presence: The biological Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist.

... and setting aside what we see and how it happens ...

Do Lutherans believe in the Symbolic Presence, Real Spiritual Presence or Real Physical Presence?

(Actually, I already know that you do not believe in the Symbolic Presence, I just included it for completeness).

 

[Josiah]

I had a hard time following the details of the Lutheran position. Wikipedia (a VERY questionable source) suggested that Lutherans believed something close to co-substantiation, but objected to that term because of some other baggage attached to it. Luther's writings seemed to focus on rejecting other views that you did not believe more than what Lutherans believe and I got tripped up by a lot of his terminology that carried meanings different from I am accustomed to. So a simple question if I may:

Given these definitions ...
Symbolic Presence: No real presence in the Eucharist, just a representation ... like a photograph.
Real Spiritual Presence: The Spiritual Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist, but the biological body and blood of Christ are not.
Real Physical Presence: The biological Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist.

... and setting aside what we see and how it happens ...

Do Lutherans believe in the Symbolic Presence, Real Spiritual Presence or Real Physical Presence?

(Actually, I already know that you do not believe in the Symbolic Presence, I just included it for completeness).

See the opening post. I think the views are well described there. If you have any questions about Real Presence (the view Lutherans, and others, embrace) I'd welcome and appreciate the opportunity to address such: not with the agenda of convincing or converting but of advancing understanding.


http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical



Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

See the opening post. I think the views are well described there. If you have any questions about Real Presence (the view Lutherans, and others, embrace) I'd welcome and appreciate the opportunity to address such: not with the agenda of convincing or converting but of advancing understanding.

http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical

Pax Christi
- Josiah

Real PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL Presence?
Christ had two natures, one corporal that you could touch and one eternal, spiritual and divine.
Luther and you both keep stressing REAL PRESENCE without actually touching the issue of His two natures (Physical/Spiritual) in a way that I can understand.
(Hence my reason for asking a simple direct question.)