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

[Albion]

Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist.

But not necessarily in the carnal sense of "bodily." The presence is real, not symbolic, but the manner of his presence is, as you say, a mystery.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have no idea what you mean by "carnal sense"

 

[Albion]

I have no idea what you mean by "carnal sense"

Christ is present in the elements. To insist that this must be a literal presence of the fleshly body that he wore at the Last Supper is not a part of the doctrine, just that in some sense which surpasses our ability to comprehend, he is present and not simply represented. In fact, it takes more of a suspension of our usual thinking to believe that parts of his physical body are simultaneously present on thousands of altars around the world at Masses as it is simply to say that his presence is actually on the altar in a way that cannot be defined by us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have no idea what you mean by "literal presence". That phrase is as uninformative as "carnal sense".

 

[Albion]

I have no idea what you mean by "literal presence". That phrase is as uninformative as "carnal sense".

Well, I not only used ordinary words instead of theological jargon (like Transubstantiation, which you seemed comfortable with) in order to explain carnal, and also included a longer description, so I'm not sure what more can be done now to explain the explanation. There are dictionaries, of course.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What is the difference between "real presence" and "literal presence" would be a good place to start.

 

[Albion]

Let's "start" with this:

What part of "presence of the fleshly body that he wore at the Last Supper is not a part of the doctrine" don't you understand?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's "start" with this:

What part of "presence of the fleshly body that he wore at the Last Supper is not a part of the doctrine" don't you understand?

Any part of that which contradicts "this is my body".

 

[Albion]

.
There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....



REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists

Maybe Anglicans should be left out of the presentation if 1) there are to be only three views (Catholic, Lutheran, and Evangelical) as the title of the thread says, and 2) if the Anglican POV, having been referred to, is going to be dismissed with *Some members believe in the Real Presence.*

 

[Imalive]

When Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54), He was not talking literally. He did not mean that people must eat His physical flesh. He was using a Hebrew idiom (which later was written in the Greek language) that means to receive, understand, and apply His teaching. To eat Christ’s flesh means to consume His words and live by them. As Jesus made clear later in the same chapter: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). It is Jesus’ words that are of value and so must be received and obeyed.

 

[Albion]

When Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54), He was not talking literally.

But, by that token, he couldn't have been talking about a mere symbol, either.

 

[Andrew]

When Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54), He was not talking literally. He did not mean that people must eat His physical flesh. He was using a Hebrew idiom (which later was written in the Greek language) that means to receive, understand, and apply His teaching. To eat Christ’s flesh means to consume His words and live by them. As Jesus made clear later in the same chapter: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). It is Jesus’ words that are of value and so must be received and obeyed.

Yup The blood is the NT/Testimony of Jesus Christ

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

But, by that token, he couldn't have been talking about a mere symbol, either.

Correct! they must be both which is why the Catholic tradition is what it is, for that remembrance

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

The early Christians did not teach real presence.

Conclusion
The church of the first three centuries, indeed, did not possess a real presence doctrine; the writings of the church fathers from that era certainly portray that. In particular, Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen explicitly deny that such a doctrine could have existed.
*The real presence doctrine of the Catholic Church was, in fact, unheard of in the early centuries of the Christian church. It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.

*https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

 

[Lamb]

The early Christians did not teach real presence.

*https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

Ah, yes, we have someone trying to infuse modern day thinking into what the early church father's wrote. If the early church fathers had not believed in the real presence the church wouldn't have had "Holy Communion" but instead just a memorial meal. Except, they didn't have just a memorial meal. Even the didache called the Eucharist "holy". But then again your link is basically a bunch of anti-Catholics (as seen in the thousands of comments). Do people not realize the Eastern Orthodox church which is just as ancient also believes in the Real Presence?

 

[MennoSota]

Ah, yes, we have someone trying to infuse modern day thinking into what the early church father's wrote. If the early church fathers had not believed in the real presence the church wouldn't have had "Holy Communion" but instead just a memorial meal. Except, they didn't have just a memorial meal. Even the didache called the Eucharist "holy". But then again your link is basically a bunch of anti-Catholics (as seen in the thousands of comments). Do people not realize the Eastern Orthodox church which is just as ancient also believes in the Real Presence?

There are quotes from the early church leaders. I'm not sure what more I can offer to you if you won't read the early church documents.

 

[Lamb]

There are quotes from the early church leaders. I'm not sure what more I can offer to you if you won't read the early church documents.

There are many other quotes from early church fathers in support of the Real Presence. Your link has a guy not accepting what he's reading because he's putting modern thinking into it and not reading what is written in its entirety. Therein lies the issue of that link.

 

[MennoSota]

There are many other quotes from early church fathers in support of the Real Presence. Your link has a guy not accepting what he's reading because he's putting modern thinking into it and not reading what is written in its entirety. Therein lies the issue of that link.

He points out the context rather than relying on quotes out of context.

 

[Lamb]

He points out the context rather than relying on quotes out of context.

Context using modern thinking instead of using a historical basis.

 

[MennoSota]

Context using modern thinking instead of using a historical basis.

He brought out the historical purpose for each of the writings. I'm not sure how he could have stayed more focused on the historicity and context of the early writings.
It seems to me that you are bashing the writer of the blog, yet not addressing what he actually says about the early Christian writers and their teaching regarding communion. What do the early documents say?