Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[George]

Since it was touched upon in the other thread, I thought I'd start a thread like this. There was an old thread about this a few months back, but thought it would be better to start a new one.

So do you believe it's merely symbolic and nothing more than wine.... or grape juice(*shudders*) and bread? Or do you believe it becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[Alithis]

Since it was touched upon in the other thread, I thought I'd start a thread like this. There was an old thread about this a few months back, but thought it would be better to start a new one.

So do you believe it's merely symbolic and nothing more than wine.... or grape juice(*shudders*) and bread? Or do you believe it becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

you speak of what they call transmutation? ..no it doesnt become his flesh and blood .. any more then the bread and wine became his flesh and blood the night he broke bread with his deciples .

 

[Josiah]

.


Let's look at the verbatim words of Scripture:



Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" on these in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, denied or "explained away" - and with no pagan philosophies or rejected prescience theories imposed or dogmatiozed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything or theorize about anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist. Orthodox hold to a variation of this, insisting that bread and wine do not exist in a FULL sense, but otherwise it's the same.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name the RCC gave for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor. It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists.



One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.



I hope that helps.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since it was touched upon in the other thread, I thought I'd start a thread like this. There was an old thread about this a few months back, but thought it would be better to start a new one.

So do you believe it's merely symbolic and nothing more than wine.... or grape juice(*shudders*) and bread? Or do you believe it becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

The host and the precious blood are the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ yet sacramentally so thus the appearance and properties of bread and wine remain and the miracle is more of hearing and believing than of seeing and believing. For a truth faith is more of hearing and believing than it ever was of seeing and believing. This is often observed both explicitly (Hebrews 11:1-3) and implicitly (John 6:48-71) in the holy scriptures.

 

[Alithis]

it is both symbolic and powerful ..like water baptism ..like the cross .. it doesn't need to be made into anything else

 

[MoreCoffee]

The cross in jewellery and art has symbolic meaning but the cross in the gospels and other documents of the new covenant is not symbolic. And baptism really does wash away sins and bring about the birth from above as well as incorporate a person into Christ as a member of his body. Communion is similar insofar as it is a real partaking of the body and blood of Christ rather than a symbol like art or jewellery or a ritual that is repeated because of a PAST event that is or was significant to those who take part in it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It seems to signify Christ's giving of the Holy Spirit, and warns of blasphemy and judgement as those given the knowledge of GOD are indeed those same held responsible for it, and the misdirection of others vainly.

2¢
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" on these in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, denied or "explained away" - and with no pagan philosophies or rejected prescience theories imposed or dogmatiozed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything or theorize about anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist. Orthodox hold to a variation of this, insisting that bread and wine do not exist in a FULL sense, but otherwise it's the same.


Transubstantiation - Accidents: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name the RCC
gave for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor. It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists.



One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's symbolic.



.

the appearance and properties

Some ADD words to what Jesus and Paul said....

Some DELETE words from what Jesus and Paul said.....

Some ACCEPT all the words that Jesus and Paul said.... Adding nothing, denying nothing.





- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[Lamb]

Christ's presence is real. I believe His body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine. That means, there is bread and wine but also His body and blood. Why? Because He said This IS my body. This IS my blood. There are 3 (some say more) areas in different books of the NT that give Christ's words so it shows importance.

When God says Let there be light, we know it is true and light appears.

When Jesus says this is my body, people doubt Him.

 

[Tigger]

There has always been things we don't fully understand no less are fully true.

Romans 3:4New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

it is both symbolic and powerful ..like water baptism ..like the cross .. it doesn't need to be made into anything else

Yet baptism with water washes away sins and the cross of Christ redeems the faithful so the bread & wine of holy communion feed the faithful with the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

The Catholic perspective is that "transubstantiation" is an apt description in the terms of Aristotle's philosophical distinctions (it is noteworthy that Aristotle was a Greek and hence an 'easterner' in today's ancient churches parlance) between substances and accidents (meaning what a thing IS and what it appears to be) but the manner and means of the Lord's bodily presence is a mystery that those words no more define than the words "Holy Trinity" define God. Transubstantiation is a handle just as Trinity is. Both words provide shorthand expressions by which a mystery is discussed but not by which it is defined.

All the word Transubstantiation tells us is that the bread IS the body of Christ even though it appears to be bread and the wine IS the blood of Christ even though it appears to be wine. Thus the word Transubstantiation despite its philosophical trappings says no more than what the Lord himself said; namely "this [bread] is my body" and "this cup [filled with wine] is my blood of the new covenant".

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

The Catholic perspective is that "transubstantiation" is an apt description in the terms of Aristotle's philosophical distinctions (it is noteworthy that Aristotle was a Greek and hence an 'easterner' in today's ancient churches parlance) between substances and accidents (meaning what a thing IS and what it appears to be) but the manner and means of the Lord's bodily presence is a mystery that those words no more define than the words "Holy Trinity" define God. Transubstantiation is a handle just as Trinity is. Both words provide shorthand expressions by which a mystery is discussed but not by which it is defined.

The unique, new RCC Eucharistic Dogma is Transubstantiation. Yes, it's an dogmatization of alchemy's central theory of "transubstantiation" and of Aristotles' prescience theory of "accidents."

And yes, the point is identical with Zwingli's: to essentially deny half of what the texts state. Zwingli desired to essentially deny the full meaning of "body and blood" (he made them SYMBOLS) and the Council of Trent in 1551 desired to essentially deny the full meaning of "bread and wine" (the RCC made them Aristotelian Accidents). It's just that Zwingli used a tool of hermeneutics to do this, whereas the RCC dogmatized two pagan theories (both long rejected by science but still dogma in the RCC).

But more importantly, IMO, for both Zwingli and the RCC, the point is that the meaning of "is" is not is (and thus both deny Real Presence).
Zwingli: SYMBOLIZES.
RCC: CHANGES via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents.
Same desire.
Same result.
Different means.




Thanks!


A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The unique, new RCC Eucharistic Dogma is Transubstantiation. Yes, it's an dogmatization of alchemy's central theory of "transubstantiation" and of Aristotles' prescience theory of "accidents." ...

What ignorant humbug! While it is true that the word 'transubstantiation' is of middle ages origin and was applied in the philosophical framework that the scholastic scholars built upon Aristotle's distinction between substance and accidents it is not true that alchemy has anything in common with the holy Eucharist or with the theologians' use of the word 'transubstantiation'.

 

[Josiah]

What ignorant humbug! While it is true that the word 'transubstantiation' is of middle ages origin and was applied in the philosophical framework that the scholastic scholars built upon Aristotle's distinction between substance and accidents it is not true that alchemy has anything in common with the holy Eucharist or with the theologians' use of the word 'transubstantiation'.

Absurd. The very technical, precise pagan, medieval word the RCC dogmatized in 1551 is "Transubstantiation." It refers to the very precise, technical change that happens in alchemy (alchemy being all the rage in western Europe during the middle ages). Note: the RCC did NOT use one of several rather generic Latin words for "change" (it consistently and craftfully evades that) but this very technical word from Alchemy. And yes, the other very technical word dogmatized is "accidents" - and you are right, that too comes from a pagan, prescience theory albeit from the philospher Aristotle. Both are approaches to "explain away" the mystery of Real Presence and to dogmatize that "is" doesn't mean "is" and much of what is stated in the Eucharistic texts.... well... isn't.

Again, Zwingli had the same mind and desire. He just wanted to abandon Real Presence by replacing "is" with "symbolizes" whereas the RCC wanted to abandon Real Presence by replacing "is" with "undergoing a CHANGE vis the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind just Aristotelian Accidents." And Zwingli wanted to essentially deny the full reality of the body and blood ("symbols" instead), the RCC wanted to deny the full reality of the bread and wine (instead, just "Aristotelian Accidents left over from the alchemic Transubstantiation"). In both cases, "don't believe what's said."

Of the two, I much, much prefer the RCC's approach to abandoning Real Presence because while it could be argued the bread and wine aren't so significant, the Body and Blood are! At least the RCC kept the important part when it throw out Real Presence! But both are about the same thing: "Is" doesn't mean is. Half of what follows the "is" ... well.... isn't (at least in any full sense). Zwingli did this via hermeneutics, the RCC did this by dogmatizing two pagan, prescience (and wrong) theories.



Thank you!


A blessed Lenten season to you and yours!


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Absurd. The very technical, precise pagan, medieval word ...

More ignorant humbug. Middle ages Christian theologians are not pagans nor was their use of Aristotle's philosophical framework pagan. It is far more likely that Aristotle was a functional atheist than that he was a pagan and he lived not in the middle ages but in ancient antiquity in the fourth century BC. The fact is that transubstantiation means exactly that the bread & wine are the body and blood of Christ the Lord yet remain in appearance bread and wine nothing more and nothing less. The word Transubstantiation tells us only that the bread IS the body of Christ even though it appears to be bread and the wine IS the blood of Christ even though it appears to be wine. Thus the word Transubstantiation despite its philosophical trappings says no more than what the Lord himself said; namely "this [bread] is my body" and "this cup [filled with wine] is my blood of the new covenant".

 

[Josiah]

The fact is that transubstantiation means exactly that the bread & wine are the body and blood of Christ the Lord yet remain in appearance bread and wine nothing more and nothing less. The word Transubstantiation tells us only that the bread IS the body of Christ even though it appears to be bread and the wine IS the blood of Christ even though it appears to be wine.

No. And this is evident because for the past several decades, as the RCC has tried to move away from this unique dogma of theirs, it often substitutes the word "CHANGE" for the word "Transubstantiation." Not "is" (the consistent word Paul and Jesus used) but "change." And often not the dogmatized word "Transubstantiation" (it's own unique, new dogma). In First Communion Classes, this is officially done (I know!). But the RCC was very, very careful to NOT use any of the Latin generic words for "change" in it's effort to throw out Real Presence and reject the many times the Eucharistic texts state "IS" (but never "change"). Nope. As you know, the RCC has been very, very careful to (officially) use the very, very precise and technical word from alchemy "Transubstantiation" in it's effort to replace the word "is."

The rest of your post is about the other issue in the RCC's replacement of Real Presence, denying the bread and wine (can't believe the texts there, either).


Again, the very technical, precise pagan, medieval word the RCC dogmatized in 1551 is "Transubstantiation." It refers to the very precise, technical change that happens in alchemy (alchemy being all the rage in western Europe during the middle ages). Note: the RCC did NOT use one of several rather generic Latin words for "change" (it consistently and craftfully evades that) but this very technical word from Alchemy. And yes, the other very technical word dogmatized is "accidents" - and you are right, that too comes from a pagan, prescience theory albeit from the philospher Aristotle. Both are approaches to "explain away" the mystery of Real Presence and to dogmatize that "is" doesn't mean "is" and much of what is stated in the Eucharistic texts.... well... isn't.

Again, Zwingli had the same mind and desire. He just wanted to abandon Real Presence by replacing "is" with "symbolizes" whereas the RCC
wanted to abandon Real Presence by replacing "is" with "undergoing a CHANGE vis the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind just Aristotelian Accidents." And Zwingli wanted to essentially deny the full reality of the body and blood ("symbols" instead), the RCC
wanted to deny the full reality of the bread and wine (instead, just "Aristotelian Accidents left over from the alchemic Transubstantiation"). In both cases, "don't believe what's said."


It's always AMAZING to me to see post-Trent Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" debate this point! Amazing! Both abandoned Real Presence, about the same time. Both deny that the meaning of is is is (present, real, received) - one replacing it with "symbolizes" and the other with "changes via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation." Both reject that what follows the is... well.... is (in a full sense anyway). The RCC rejects the bread and wine, the Zwinglian Evangelicals the body and blood. One uses hermeneutics to deny Real Presence, the other two ancient, prescience (wrong) theories. Same/Same. BOTH shout "look at the text - but don't believe it!" It's really amazing to witness the debate. I have for many years. Self shooting self in foot.


Yeah, I know, the RCC could have left well enough alone. Could have simply kept Real Presence. I don't think there was any sinister in it's rejection of this, and yeah, it did keep the critical part. But in the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church insists on messing things up with their silly theories" and "This proves how the Roman Church just can't shut up." I too wish the RCC had left things alone.... had just accepted what Jesus said and Paul penned - even though I realize, it leaves us with MYSTERY. And that requires humility - something the RCC abandoned many centuries before this 1551 action.

Lord himself said; namely "this [bread] is my body" and "this cup [filled with wine] is my blood of the new covenant".

I agree. Not, "This bread has changed into my body via the very precise, techical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident." Not, "This bread now symbolizes my body." IS. IS = present, real, there.


And Paul did not pen:

"The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This has changed into my body via the very technical, precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is hereby undergoing a change via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation into the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this Aristotelian Accident of bread that only has the appearance of bread, and drink this cup which actually doesn't exist but is the Aristotelian accident or mere appearance of wine, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats what is only an Aristotelian Accident of bread but really isn't bread, or drinks the cup of the Lord which actually isn't really wine but just an Aristotelian Accident of such, kinda seems like it, in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord which alone are present (so forget about that bread and wine). Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread (which doesn't exist, just an Aristotelian Accident left over after the alchemic Transubstantiation) and drink of the cup (which doesn't exist, just an Aristotelian Accident left over after the alchemic Transubstantiation) . For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

.

Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. And this is evident because for the past several decades... substitutes the word "CHANGE" for the word "Transubstantiation."

Even more ignorant humbug. First communion classes usually are taught to children of about eight years of age who would almost certainly be unable to pronounce 'transubstantiation' never mind grasp the philosophical system behind it. Relying on such 'proofs' is sound evidence that your stated argument is a humbug that even a child would soon learn to reject as untrue. If the teachers of first communion class used 'change' rather than transubstantiation then it almost certainly was a concession to the childhood minds of their pupils and not a reflection of any alleged systematic change in Catholic teaching. Once more I remind the reader that the word Transubstantiation tells us only that the bread IS the body of Christ even though it appears to be bread and the wine IS the blood of Christ even though it appears to be wine. Thus the word Transubstantiation despite its philosophical trappings says no more than what the Lord himself said; namely "this [bread] is my body" and "this cup [filled with wine] is my blood of the new covenant".