The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

[bbbbbbb]

Tone it down!

Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me that my statement is, at a very minimum, bizarre.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

?? The Eucharist is never mentioned, and neither is communion, yet the reference is obvious??

From a literary stance, that makes no sense whatsoever. How can something that is not there be obvious?

From a proper exegetical stance it is incorrect

I try very hard to use the standard rules for interpreting Scripture. The clear passages of Scripture interpret the less clear or obscure. The clear passages for interpreting the Eucharist are Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26, I Cor 10 and 1 Cor. 11. According to the historic western tradition these passages of Scripture are considered sedes doctrinae. All other passages of Scripture are subservient to these passages.

The historic Eastern tradition will sometimes also include II Peter 3 and John 6 as a defense of the Real Presence.

I used to hold that John 6 was Eucharistic as Martin Luther did. Then it became an open question. At this point in my life I don't see John 6 as Eucharistic at all. As for II Peter 3, I see it was an obscure passage of Scripture that COULD be referring Eucharist. I believe II Peter 3 COULD be used as a secondary verse to Paul's "participation" terminology in I Cor. 10. Beyond that not too much more.

Having said that, I would never marshall II Peter 3 as evidence for the Real Presence especially debating memorialists here at CF. II Peter 3 is highly integral to the whole of Orthodoxy especially concerning their Formal Principle of Theology....Theosis. And many here at CF don't even know what Theosis means.

IMO, a strong argument for the Real Presence against the Memorialist is the grammatical argument as minutely articulated in post #26.

It irks me when a Memorialist state our Lord's words are figurative yet never, never, never state what the particular figure of speech it is. Bullinger's, Figures of Speech in the Bible (available free online) list over 200 individual figures of speech found in Scripture. Which one of the two hundred figures of speech is "This is my body?" When I query memorialists, all I get is silence.

 

[hislegacy]

No, this is not my opinion: in your post, you wrote, and I quote, “ Way too long to read. However I skimmed it and could not find a direct reply to the simple FACT that Peter make NO reference to the Eucharist, nor the Lords table in either of his espistles.”

In what respect would you say the Eucharist is different from the Lord’s Table? And if they are not, in your opinion, different, why are you enumerating over them as two separate entities using the word “nor”?

In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.

For the record, the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” and is one of four terms commonly used to refer to this sacrament (or “ordinance” as some insist on calling it), the others being “Holy Communion,” “The Lord’s Supper” and “The Lord’s Table.” The terms “Divine Liturgy,” “Mass”, “Divine Service” “Missa” “Gottesdienst,” “Qurbono Qadisho” or “Raza” and “Soorp Badarak” in English, Latin, German, Syriac and Armenian respectively, refer to the service where the Eucharist is celebrated, and not to the actual sacrament, although occasionally some churches, particularly Anglican churches, will refer to the service as “the Eucharist” or “Holy Communion,” (which is also technically the name given for the service in the Book of Common Prayer).

Thank you for the history, lesson, But what does that have to do with the fact that Peter not in first Peter and not in second Peter ever mentioned the Lords table the bread, or the Eucharist?

Once again, I quoted the scripture verses from second Peter that you made reference to. Not in the verses before and not in the verses after is it contextually about the Eucharist.

There’s no scriptural proof of what you’re teaching.

The only thing you have is opinions written 400 years after the scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is he “pious” because he agrees with you? Or is he pious because he leads his life a certain way?

Piety requires correct conduct and correct belief. Correct belief is not determined by agreeing with me, because I am often wrong, but rather by agreeing with the faith handed down from the Apostles. And with regards to his adherence to the Apostolic Faith, @jas3 is actually more pious than I am; I can assert this because on at least two occasions, he has expressed an opinion that differed from my own, but when I went to review the Patristic material and also conducted a comparative review of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, traditional Methodist, high church Anglican, orthodox Lutheran, and other denominational perspectives, I found that i was in error and his views were correct. As far as correct conduct is concerned, the right approach it to assume that we are the worst of sinners and that everyone else is less sinful than we are, since this protects us from falling into the spiritual delusions caused by pride; this is especially the case for clergy and monastics. As St. Silouan the Athonite taught, there are two thoughts of which every Christian should beware of, and from which every Christian should flee, and that is first, the thought that we personally have attained some special status of holiness, some spiritual accomplishment or achievement, and the other is that we are beyond the hope of God’s salvation. The first one leads to pride and the second leads to despair, and these are sinful conditions that are particularly dangerous because they are delusional and can entrap us.

 

[jas3]

Quoting what someone wrote 400 years years later about what they thought does not change the simple fact it is not there.

Alright, but you asked in post #15 how the passage in 2 Peter and St. Cyril's writings were connected. Your question was answered twice, first in post #18 and again in post #50 since you didn't engage with the answer you were given the first time.

Either the reference is in the Scripture or it is not.

This is a perfect example where Tradition is raised to the level of Sacred Scripture to the point of making a point on something that is just not there.

Don't you think that the understanding of Scripture held by the early Christians, especially given their languages' proximity to Koine Greek, should hold some weight in determining the proper interpretation of a disputed passage? Doing so doesn't require treating their writings as scripture.

These threads would be better off in the correct forum for them. Then there would be no debate

There's a middle ground between "no debate" and what is happening here. Even Zwingli was willing to engage with the Church Fathers, something modern memorialists would do well to emulate.

Cryl’s writing is not Divine

Let's try to raise the level of dialogue. Surely you've read a biblical commentary before and found it useful, even though it wasn't divine.

 

[The Liturgist]

I try very hard to use the standard rules for interpreting Scripture. The clear passages of Scripture interpret the less clear or obscure. The clear passages for interpreting the Eucharist are Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26, I Cor 10 and 1 Cor. 11. According to the historic western tradition these passages of Scripture are considered sedes doctrinae. All other passages of Scripture are subservient to these passages.

The historic Eastern tradition will sometimes also include II Peter 3 and John 6 as a defense of the Real Presence.

I used to hold that John 6 was Eucharistic as Martin Luther did. Then it became an open question. At this point in my life I don't see John 6 as Eucharistic at all. As for II Peter 3, I see it was an obscure passage of Scripture that COULD be referring Eucharist. I believe II Peter 3 COULD be used as a secondary verse to Paul's "participation" terminology in I Cor. 10. Beyond that not too much more.

Having said that, I would never marshall II Peter 3 as evidence for the Real Presence especially debating memorialists here at CF. II Peter 3 is highly integral to the whole of Orthodoxy especially concerning their Formal Principle of Theology....Theosis. And many here at CF don't even know what Theosis means.

IMO, a strong argument for the Real Presence against the Memorialist is the grammatical argument as minutely articulated in post #26.

It irks me when a Memorialist state our Lord's words are figurative yet never, never, never state what the particular figure of speech it is. Bullinger's, Figures of Speech in the Bible (available free online) list over 200 individual figures of speech found in Scripture. Which one of the two hundred figures of speech is "This is my body?" When I query memorialists, all I get is silence.

I agree with you concering 2 Peter 3, in that I think it refers to Theosis but the Eucharistic content in it is too obscure to make it apologetically useful; rather one would have to have acquired an Orthodox phronema and an understanding of Alexandrian hermeneutics to appreciate it within the context of the Medicine of Immortality (although it is there). For most people however, the context of 2 Peter 3 is eschatological, and thus to ensure a certain simplicity I argue from it only along eschatological lines. However, in my opinion enough members are familiar with Theosis, and furthermore, as someone who venerates John and Charles Wesley and their attempt to teach Theosis, calling it Entire Sanctification, and as an Orthodox Christian, I do want to actively teach Theosis as much as possible, but I am not going to use that particular chapter to do so.

Obviously as someone who attended a Lutheran parochial school and is a member of an Eastern church I hold John 6 as being Eucharistic, and I have used it in defending the Eucharist, but I would also say that I have never met a liturgical Western Christian aside from yourself who does not regard it as being Eucharistic. Indeed for my part I would not be able to disagree with its Eucharistic context, since the Patristic interpretation of it is so overwhelmingly consistent. Of course part of having an Orthodox phronema is to study the Patristic interpretations, but contrary to what some Protestants might think, one cannot simply open ones Bible and quote a prevailing Patristic interpretation of every verse in every chapter of every Bible, because even where these exist (and there is much that is not defined, indeed, if one looks at the Orthodox Study Bible or the Lutheran Study Bible, most verses do not have any explanatory footnotes), one still has to understand where the Fathers were coming from in their interpretation. If we merely parroted the Early Church Fathers, without seeking to understand the reasoning behind their interpretation, we would turn a living tradition into a dead tradition, which is I think what happened in the case of the Assyrian Church of the East, because their numbers were so greatly reduced after the genocide of Tamerlane, and their monasteries were all destroyed, and the leadership of the church was taken over by an uncanonical hereditary Patriarchate, and this resulted in a situation where their clergy became increasingly untrained and the church was on autopilot until the 1950s, when after several St. Thomas Christians in India had, in the prior decades, re-affiliated with the church* and one of the Indian bishops discovered a volume of their canon law, discovered that the hereditary Patriarchate was uncanonical, and thus a string of controversies were initiated which led to the current split between the Assyrian and the Ancient Church of the East, but which also led to a revival of East Syriac theology, and also the expurgation of all of the remaining elements of toxic Nestorianism from the Assyrian church under Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV in 1975, except for the veneration of Nestorius as a confessor, which is gross, but not on a par with the kind of Nestorianism one encounters among some Restorationist churches, which have re-implemented the entire Nestorian Christological program in order to avoid having to concede that the Blessed Virgin Mary is Theotokos.

There have even been some attempts at restarting monasticism within the Church of the East (which would be helpful considering they have a celibate episcopate; in the Orthodox churches the majority of bishops are monastics and experience the spiritual formation of monastic training (and the minority that aren’t are either elderly widowers, or elderly married men who are continent owing to age, but in either case have been married only once, and thus experienced a similar amount of self-discipline and personal sacrifice, which is required to keep a marriage alive for that amount of time).



*The Mar Thoma Christians were historically a remote, autonomous province of the Assyrian Church of the East, whose communications with the Catholicos in Seleucia-Cstesiphon (and later after movements of the Tigris caused that city to be abandoned, in its replacement, Baghdad) became sporadic after the genocide of Tamerlane, until the Portuguese conquered the Malabar Coast and the Jesuits took over much of the church and made it a Sui Juris Eastern Catholic church, with those parishes who refused to accept Roman hegemony addressing their appeal for assistance to the Patriarch of Antioch, perhaps because at one time the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East had been a sort of Mesopotamian viceroy to the Patriarch of Antioch (and indeed, in the Syriac Orthodox Church this arrangement continued; to void confusion with the primate of the Assyrian church, the Syriac Orthodox gave their vice-Patriarch the title of Maphrian). The same Syriac Orthodox Patriarch answered (indeed, I doubt if by the time they sent the letter in the 17th century if the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was still literate in Syriac and able to read their communique), and thus the Orthodox Christians of India became a part of the Syriac Orthodox Church rather than the Assyrian Church of the East. Thus, the same language, the same ethnic group in the Middle East (albeit different tribes, who mainly spoke using the Western neo-Aramaic dialects and spoke Syriac with a Western five-vowell accent rather than the more traditional seven-vowel East Syriac accent of the Assyrians), but a different liturgy and some theological differences. But it was inevitable that some Indians would eventually realize this and endeavor to reach the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[The Liturgist]

These threads would be better off in the correct forum for them. Then there would be no debate

Traditional Theology is not the correct forum for these threads. The whole purpose of General Theology is to facilitate dialogue, discussion and debate between Christians of different backgrounds. There are Congregation Forums and group forums both for members who adhere to the doctrine of the Real Presence and those who do not.

Also a lack of debates of this sort would be disastrous for this forum, since debate threads such as this attract the most views and the most attention and are extremely popular with a large range of the members. Also, some debate threads prove to be mutually edifying, since they result in a positive dialogue, which can in turn lead to members on both sides learning something new through dialogue.

It might surprise you greatly to know, by the way, that a belief in the Real Presence is not required for participation in the Traditional Theology forum. Indeed, considering Anglicans represent a large contingent of the members in Traditional Theology, and several Calvinists have also participated in it, and one of its founding members was a Calvinist, a Presbyterian, a large number of members in that forum do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Indeed, at least three of the most active contributors to that forum do not believe in the Real Presence.

 

[jas3]

It might surprise you greatly to know, by the way, that a belief in the Real Presence is not required for participation in the Traditional Theology forum. Indeed, considering Anglicans represent a large contingent of the members in Traditional Theology, and several Calvinists have also participated in it, and one of its founding members was a Calvinist, a Presbyterian, a large number of members in that forum do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Indeed, at least three of the most active contributors to that forum do not believe in the Real Presence.

Don't traditional Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? I've heard at least one of them (The Other Paul on Youtube, IIRC) claim that they were actually the ones who coined the phrase "Real Presence." Given the overwhelming historical record of belief in a literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its universal acceptance by the apostolic churches as well as by traditional Lutherans and Anglicans, I'm really surprised that a rejection of it would be tolerated there.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me that my statement is, at a very minimum, bizarre.

Indeed, it is also inapplicable, because when the Only Begotten Son and Word of God became incarnate, His uncreated Divinity was united hypostatically with His assumed humanity, without change, confusion, separation or division. So when we partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we are partaking of His resurrected humanity and His divinity, which are united indivisibly.

 

[The Liturgist]

Don't traditional Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? I've heard at least one of them (The Other Paul on Youtube, IIRC) claim that they were actually the ones who coined the phrase "Real Presence." Given the overwhelming historical record of belief in a literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its universal acceptance by the apostolic churches as well as by traditional Lutherans and Anglicans, I'm really surprised that a rejection of it would be tolerated there.

It depends on churchmanship. Most High Church Anglicans and almost all Traditional Anglo Catholics (but not necessarily Liberal Catholics, some of whom are closer to the Broad Church position) believe in the Real Presence. But Low Church Anglicans and Evangelicals, who in the US, Melanesia, Ghana, and historically, Scotland, and many other provinces, are a small minority, although in some provinces, such as the Archdiocese of Sydney, and historically, Ireland, they are a majority), and Broad Church Anglicans, who can be found in almost every province in varying quantities, following the via media approach of the 16th Elizabethan Settlement and the 18th century Latitudinarians, will either try to find a middle ground position, or alternately, under the influence of Pietism, de-emphasize the importance of the debate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."

Ellicot's Commentary: ...

We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".

As far as Ellicot's Commentary goes; if you want to start a war of commentary's, there are Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican commentaries that support the more Scriptural position of the real presence.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.

Forgive me, I don’t understand, because the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that the Eucharist consists of both the bread and the wine, even before communion in both kinds became permitted again for Western Catholics after Vatican II. Also, if he said that to you before the mass began, or before the Words of Institution, your priest made an error, for the correct term for the wafers of unconsecrated unleavened bread for use in Holy Communion, in the context of the Roman Catholic Church, as our Roman Catholic friends @Xeno.of.athens @Valletta @concretecamper and @chevyontheriver can confirm, would be “the hosts.”

But the Eucharist itself, regardless of what sacramental theology one adheres to (whether Zwinglian, Memorialist, Receptionist, or a belief in the Real Presence) is synonymous with the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion. And some churches, because Eucharist is an Anglicization of a Greek word, translate it fully and call the sacrament “The Great Thanksgiving.” It consists, in its most basic form of the consecration, distribution and consumption of the bread and wine* which has been set aside for that purpose.

Now obviously you are free to believe what you like, but why adhere to a definition of a word that is fundamentally incorrect according to the church that employed your priest, according to any other church, according to any dictionaries of Christianity, and which will simply lead to confusion?

* Or grape juice, or musk (unfermented wine), or wine diluted with water (which historically was the most common, and is still prevalent in traditional churches, except for the Armenian Apostolic Church (Oriental Orthodox) or the tiny remnant of the Armenian Catholic Church which survived the genocide in 1915, which have always used straight wine) but never water. Consuming bread and water in the Eucharist was viewed since antiquity as a heresy (those who do this are called hydroparastae), and at present only the Mormons engage in this strange practice.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood

It is good to do what our Lord tells us to do. He gives us food and tells us to eat; so we should do. In the garden, there was one food he said not to eat; look what happened when Adam and Eve ate what they were told not to...

In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. <Snip>

For context, might I ask why you seem to have dedicated the rest of your life to defaming universal catholic doctrines and practices; why so angry?

 

[The Liturgist]

We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".

As far as Ellicot's Commentary goes; if you want to start a war of commentary's, there are Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican commentaries that support the more Scriptural position of the real presence.

Indeed, and BibleHub hosts the Orthodox commentary par excellence, that of St. John Chrysostom, who said this about the Eucharist, on John ch. 6 v. 52

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Ver. 52. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
If thou seekest to know the "how," why askedst not thou this in the matter of the loaves, how He extended five to so great a number? Because they then only thought of being satisfied, not of seeing the miracle. "But," saith some one, "their experience then taught them." Then by reason of that experience these words ought to have been readily received. For to this end He wrought beforehand that strange miracle, that taught by it they might no longer disbelieve what should be said by Him afterwards.

[3.] Those men then at that time reaped no fruit from what was said, but we have enjoyed the benefit in the very realities. Wherefore it is necessary to understand the marvel of the Mysteries, what it is, why it was given, and what is the profit of the action. We become one Body, and "members of His flesh and of His bones." (Ephesians 5:30.) Let the initiated [1300] follow what I say. In order then that we may become this not by love only, but in very deed, let us be blended [1301] into that flesh. This is effected by the food which He hath freely given us, desiring to show the love which He hath for us. On this account He hath mixed up Himself with us; He hath kneaded up [1302] His body with ours, that we might be a certain One Thing, [1303] like a body joined to a head. For this belongs to [1304] them who love strongly; this, for instance, Job implied, speaking of his servants, by whom he was beloved so exceedingly, that they desired to cleave unto his flesh. For they said, to show the strong love which they felt, "Who would give us to be satisfied with his flesh?" (Job 31:31.) Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show His love for us; He hath given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him, and satisfy all their love. Let us then return from that table like lions breathing fire, having become terrible to the devil; thinking on our Head, and on the love which He hath shown for us. Parents often entrust their offspring to others to feed; "but I," saith He, "do not so, I feed you with Mine own flesh, desiring that you all be nobly born, [1305] and holding forth to you good hopes for the future. For He who giveth out Himself to you here, much more will do so hereafter. I have willed to become your Brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I give out to you the flesh and the blood by which I became your kinsman." This blood causeth the image of our King to be fresh [1306] within us, produceth beauty unspeakable, permitteth not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it. The blood derived from our food becomes not at once blood, but something else; while this doth not so, but straightway watereth our souls, and worketh in them some mighty power. This [1307] blood, if rightly taken, driveth away devils, and keepeth them afar off from us, while it calleth to us Angels and the Lord of Angels. For wherever they see the Lord's blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. This blood poured forth washed clean all the world; many wise sayings did the blessed Paul utter concerning it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This blood cleansed the secret place, and the Holy of Holies. And if the type of it had such great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and in the midst of Egypt, when smeared on the door-posts, much more the reality. This blood sanctified the golden altar; without it the high priest dared not enter into the secret place. This blood consecrated [1308] priests, this in types cleansed [1309] sins. But if it had such power in the types, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality? This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, [1310] by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causeth our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible.

[4.] Awful in truth are the Mysteries of the Church, awful in truth is the Altar. A fountain went up out of Paradise sending forth [1311] material rivers, from this table springeth up a fountain which sendeth forth rivers spiritual. By the side of this fountain are planted not fruitless willows, but trees reaching even to heaven, bearing fruit ever timely and undecaying. If any be scorched with heat, let him come to the side of this fountain and cool his burning. For it quencheth drought, and comforteth [1312] all things that are burnt up, not by the sun, but by the fiery darts. For it hath its beginning from above, and its source is there, whence also its water floweth. Many are the streams of that fountain which the Comforter sendeth forth, and the Son is the Mediator, not holding mattock to clear the way, but opening our minds. This fountain is a fountain of light, spouting forth rays of truth. By it stand the Powers on high looking upon the beauty of its streams, because they more clearly perceive the power of the Things set forth, and the flashings unapproachable. For as when gold is being molten if one should (were it possible) dip in it his hand or his tongue, he would immediately render them golden; thus, but in much greater degree, doth what here is set forth work upon the soul. Fiercer than fire the river boileth up, yet burneth not, but only baptizeth that on which it layeth hold. This blood was ever typified of old in the altars and sacrifices [1313] of righteous men, This is the price of the world, by This Christ purchased to Himself the Church, by This He hath adorned Her all. For as a man buying servants giveth gold for them, and again when he desireth to deck them out doth this also with gold; so Christ hath purchased us with His blood, and adorned us with His blood. They who share this blood stand with Angels and Archangels and the Powers that are above, clothed in Christ's own kingly robe, and having the armor of the Spirit. Nay, I have not as yet said any great thing: they are clothed with the King Himself.

Now as this is a great and wonderful thing, so if thou approach it with pureness, thou approachest for salvation; but if with an evil conscience, for punishment and vengeance. "For," It saith, "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily" of the Lord, "eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" (1 Corinthians 11:29); since if they who defile the kingly purple are punished equally with those who rend it, it is not [1314] unreasonable that they who receive the Body with unclean thoughts should suffer the same punishment as those who rent it with the nails. Observe at least how fearful a punishment Paul declareth, when he saith, "He that despised Moses' law dieth without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing?" (Hebrews 1:28.) Take we then heed to ourselves, beloved, we who enjoy such blessings; and if we desire to utter any shameful word, or perceive ourselves hurried away by wrath or any like passion, let us consider of what things we have been deemed worthy, of how great a Spirit we have partaken, and this consideration shall be a sobering of our unreasonable passions. For how long shall we be nailed to present things? How long shall it be before we rouse ourselves? How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, now and ever and world without end. Amen.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, it is quite a stretch to imagine that Jesus was speaking hyper-literally in that context, but only metaphorically in other contexts where, for example, He claimed to be a shepherd or a door or a vine.

I assure you, Jesus was fully capable of speaking metaphorically or literally, no one should have to stretch their imagination to believe this. It is curious you believe so. In the case of John 6, his disciples clearly believe he is speaking literally by their question, and they are confirmed in their belief. When Jesus spoke of Himself as a door, the response was not "How can this man be made of wood?"

 

[RandyPNW]

We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".

As far as Ellicot's Commentary goes; if you want to start a war of commentary's, there are Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican commentaries that support the more Scriptural position of the real presence.

No, I just thought Ellicot provided a good confirmation of the way I was arguing. You can use whatever references help me to understand your position.

Your argument is no better than stating a metaphor cannot be a metaphor if it *sounds* literal. For example, if I say, "You're a rock," I must therefore mean that you're literally a rock!

The same thing would apply to language that is *obviously* figurative. It was obviously figurative for Jesus to say that his flesh was something to eat. If you don't get that, you must believe in a flat earth.

On the other hand, many, many Christians have advocated for taking Jesus' words literally regarding the Eucharist. I find that very strange, but then again, religion has always been mixed, between true Christians and nominal Christians, between mature believers and immature believers, between obedient Christians and disobedient Christians.

I don't really wish to insult *you* for believing as you do. But I don't have a problem insulting the concept that some would try to prove that if I say "you're a rock" I cannot possibly mean that you're strong!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

in the context of the Roman Catholic Church, as our Roman Catholic friends @Xeno.of.athens @Valletta @concretecamper and @chevyontheriver can confirm, would be “the hosts.”

Unconsecrated communion bread is called "the hosts" and unconsecrated communion wine is called "wine" or "communion wine". After consecration the wine is called "the precious blood" and the hosts are called "the body of Christ". Unused yet consecrated "hosts" are kept in the tabernacle and are consumed at the next mass.

 

[concretecamper]

In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.

Good grief. If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed for themselves or their family that they were devout, active Catholics who at some point left His Church I could retire tomorrow. NO ONE, who is a devout practicing Catholic would ever leave His Church.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I would also say that I have never met a liturgical Western Christian aside from yourself who does not regard it as being Eucharistic.

From what I gather from the LCMS and from my conversations, John 6 being Eucharist is not an issue. Some say it is, some say it isn't.

The good thing is John 6 is not in the Lutheran confessions being the Eucharist. If it was... we would have a 400 year tradition of disagreements and countless divisions within Lutheranism.

John 6 for me isn't a fruitful nor clear Scripture for developing an appropriate apologia for the real presence.

My grammar argument (although over the heads of many memorialists) is a very strong defense.

I think I am going to start working on I Cor 10 & 11 and demonstrate how Paul defends and promotes the Real Presence. Probably out in a week or two.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

NO ONE, who is a devout practicing Catholic would ever leave His Church.

Amen.