I was baptised between 1 and 2 years of age in California, in a Lutheran Church (The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church) by pastor Petersen. I have only a vague recollection of the event.I'm sure that was interesting.
I was baptised between 1 and 2 years of age in California, in a Lutheran Church (The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church) by pastor Petersen. I have only a vague recollection of the event.
AND the first COMMUION will NOT be ,taken again until Christ , until that day when I drink it NEW with YOU in my FATHERS KINGDOM ,I believe that all of the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some others) accept and teach the real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.
Catholics believe and teach that the elements of bread & wine are changed during the Eucharistic Prayer. The change is called transubstantiation among Catholics.
John Paul II wrote an encyclical entitled "ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA", available here Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II, in which is written:
15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24 Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, we shall continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever more deeply.These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual realities”25 which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.26This thread is intended for discussion about the real presence. If you or your denomination teach a metaphorical or symbolic presence then this thread is not for you.
Yes, that's probably true. However, I'm not sure the question that the bread and the wine might get "transformed" was on the table either?? I don't suppose that anyone would've questioned that Jesus was "present" when he served up the Communion. And nobody would question whether his presence, via the Holy Spirit, is in the room whenever the Communion is served up either?
It would be consistent, if the language of symbolism was being affirmed, that in some way that very symbolic application is justified. For example, even if I say that the bread Jesus offered as "his flesh" was purely symbolic I would have to defend this by saying it is being "transformed" in the mind of the one who partakes of it.If we look at the early liturgical texts of the Church, and the writings of the Father, they make it clear that there is a belief in the Real Change.
You appear to distinguish between real and spiritual, in a way that suggests that spiritual is not real, or at least not as real. The question then focuses on what we mean by real, probably echoing Pilate's Question what is truth? this in a way gets back to the words often ascribed to Elizabeth 1: His was the word that Spake it, and what his word doth make it, I do believe and take it.It would be incredible for me to believe that Jesus' Disciples believed in the Eucharist as anything other than a meal symbolizing Jesus' imminent death. They, of course, saw this after the fact.
But I do think it's possible early Christians saw the seriousness of the rite as indicating we should view the bread as somehow Jesus' flesh. This makes little sense to me personally, but I can see how those who had trouble with Jesus' statements elsewhere would be unable to see this as anything but literal. Jesus was very simple at times, and in other ways, extremely profound.
I can also see how generations of Christians may have viewed eating the bread as somehow eating Jesus' flesh, as symbolic of his life. It is sometimes thought that participating in the Eucharist is in itself a form of participating in Christ, as opposed to what we're supposed to be doing every day. We're supposed to be walking in Christ every day, partaking of his Spirit. And yet, somehow the Communion, as a ritual, is viewed as a special, elite taking in of Christ.
No matter how early Christians viewed it, it is impossible that they thought they were taking in anything other than Jesus in a spiritual way. They weren't cannibals. So the biggest issue for me is the question: does taking the Eucharist obtain for us any special grace, or is it strictly a ritual that is suppose to remember Jesus and take seriously how he is to be played out in our lives? I think the latter.
It is not symbolic; the holy Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ because he says it is.It would be incredible for me to believe that Jesus' Disciples believed in the Eucharist as anything other than a meal symbolizing
No, the question is not about what I think is "real." The ceremony was real. And the fact Jesus called it a "memorial" is real. The fact we do this, viewing the bread as if it is Jesus' flesh is real. Ditto the wine.You appear to distinguish between real and spiritual, in a way that suggests that spiritual is not real, or at least not as real. The question then focuses on what we mean by real, probably echoing Pilate's Question what is truth? this in a way gets back to the words often ascribed to Elizabeth 1: His was the word that Spake it, and what his word doth make it, I do believe and take it.
Jesus said he is the light of the world. He is that energy from the sun because he says it is so? It is understood as a literary figure--not literally. That would be cannibalism.It is not symbolic; the holy Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ because he says it is.
Fair enough.It would be consistent, if the language of symbolism was being affirmed, that in some way that very symbolic application is justified. For example, even if I say that the bread Jesus offered as "his flesh" was purely symbolic I would have to defend this by saying it is being "transformed" in the mind of the one who partakes of it.
This begs the question of whether Jesus was speaking figuratively.In other words, I should defend Jesus' symbolic use of the language by using the same kind of symbolic language.
The symbolic interpretation was only introduced in some Protestant denominations, though. The Catholic Church was in schism from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox long before then, and their theology developed independently after those schisms. I think it's extremely unlikely that those churches fell into the same "extreme mysticism" independently.However, the issue of *substantial transformation* never really came up until those who stated the obvious that this was purely symbolic, came up in history. Before that it would've been common sense to use the language of "transformation" in a symbolic way.
This line of thinking seems to leave no room for miracles. Common sense tells us that rubbing mud in a blind man's eyes will probably lead to discomfort and infection, not healing.It does not mean, however, that the bread is actually being transformed substantially, since common sense tells us there can be no such physical transformation.
Here you continue with the assumption you have made earlier, that the symbolic interpretation is the default and that the literal interpretation requires further proof, when in reality it's the other way around. Jesus explained the meaning of His symbolic language to the Apostles, but he never gave an explanation of the Bread of Life discourse, so there is no indication that this is meant to be taken figuratively. The onus is on the figurative side to produce evidence.Instead of relying upon various traditional readings of this sacrament I suggest you look up where it is suggested that the bread *substantially* is changed into Jesus' flesh? You will not be able to do so easily, I think, because the evolution from a symbolic meaning to the idea of a transformative spiritual experience likely took place gradually. That is pure magic!
This is another assumption in need of substantiation.No matter how early Christians viewed it, it is impossible that they thought they were taking in anything other than Jesus in a spiritual way.
Of course. However, it's true. If I was to defend the symbolic use of "this bread is my flesh," I would have to double down by saying, "this bread has truly become (for me) Christ's flesh." It is circular, but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh. There is obviously no substantive, material transformation from physical bread to physical human flesh. Not only so, but at that point Christ had yet to even die, and that was the stated purpose for the rite.This begs the question of whether Jesus was speaking figuratively.
You're assuming what you wish to prove, that a symbolic interpretation was not engaged, automatically, from the start. In fact that is my main argument, that anybody with common sense would understand that Jesus was using a figure of speech. Otherwise, he's a cannibal!The symbolic interpretation was only introduced in some Protestant denominations, though.
No, they were more intent on getting people to take Jesus seriously in the Eucharist, rather than try to explain a magical transformation, or "spiritual transformation"--whatever that is? So the idea was to get people to realize that Jesus was real rather than argue for a substantial transformation from one material substance to another.The Catholic Church was in schism from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox long before then, and their theology developed independently after those schisms. I think it's extremely unlikely that those churches fell into the same "extreme mysticism" independently.
But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!This line of thinking seems to leave no room for miracles. Common sense tells us that rubbing mud in a blind man's eyes will probably lead to discomfort and infection, not healing.
Yes, my main argument is that this *has to be* a symbolic interpretation. The occasion allowed for no other interpretation--not even a "spiritual transformation" of substances! It just didn't happen. And it referred to something that hadn't happened yet. In other words, no--it isn't the "other way around!"Here you continue with the assumption you have made earlier, that the symbolic interpretation is the default and that the literal interpretation requires further proof, when in reality it's the other way around.
The point is, Jesus used literary figures meant to be understood by those inclined to believe and be willing to accept the association. Parables encourage unbelief in those who want to read their own meaning into the figures. Jesus didn't care if unbelievers chose to not believe.Jesus explained the meaning of His symbolic language to the Apostles, but he never gave an explanation of the Bread of Life discourse, so there is no indication that this is meant to be taken figuratively. The onus is on the figurative side to produce evidence.
I did my best.This is another assumption in need of substantiation.
Of course. However, it's true. If I was to defend the symbolic use of "this bread is my flesh," I would have to double down by saying, "this bread has truly become (for me) Christ's flesh." It is circular, but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh. There is obviously no substantive, material transformation from physical bread to physical human flesh. Not only so, but at that point Christ had yet to even die, and that was the stated purpose for the rite.
You're assuming what you wish to prove, that a symbolic interpretation was not engaged, automatically, from the start. In fact that is my main argument, that anybody with common sense would understand that Jesus was using a figure of speech. Otherwise, he's a cannibal!
No, they were more intent on getting people to take Jesus seriously in the Eucharist, rather than try to explain a magical transformation, or "spiritual transformation"--whatever that is? So the idea was to get people to realize that Jesus was real rather than argue for a substantial transformation from one material substance to another.
Again, doubling down on the same or similar language of symbolism may suggest a physical transformation, except that it is all the while stated and assumed to be a "spiritual" thing, which is hardly a physical transformation.
But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!
Yes, my main argument is that this *has to be* a symbolic interpretation. The occasion allowed for no other interpretation--not even a "spiritual transformation" of substances! It just didn't happen. And it referred to something that hadn't happened yet. In other words, no--it isn't the "other way around!"
The point is, Jesus used literary figures meant to be understood by those inclined to believe and be willing to accept the association. Parables encourage unbelief in those who want to read their own meaning into the figures. Jesus didn't care if unbelievers chose to not believe.
I did my best.
Just giving you my honest opinion. You're welcome to believe as the Lord leads you, or as He reveals to you!"but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh".
Wow, that is very presumptuous on your part.
But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!
That is also very presumptuous; He was so clear about what it is, but not a peep about what it is not.
And, BTW, our Lord Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, He is not a Genie that does magic tricks, He is the Lord God of Hosts, the King of Heaven. Miracles are His stock and trade; not Magic.
The Holy Eucharist itself is a miracle!"but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh".
Wow, that is very presumptuous on your part.
But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!
That is also very presumptuous; He was so clear about what it is, but not a peep about what it is not.
And, BTW, our Lord Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, He is not a Genie that does magic tricks, He is the Lord God of Hosts, the King of Heaven. Miracles are His stock and trade; not Magic.
The Holy Eucharist is Eschatological. In this moment time and eternity meet.The Holy Eucharist itself is a miracle!
Time and eternity meet in the entire mass.The Holy Eucharist is Eschatological. In this moment time and eternity meet.