Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | May 23, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

[RnMomof7]

Worthy od discussion

[RnMomof7]

Ping

[kidd]

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

but He didn’t. He was quite clear.

“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”

[HossB86]

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.” but He didn’t. He was quite clear. “This is My body” and “This is My blood.

Sure...right. So, based on that, I assume that whenever you say anything -- ANYTHING that is symbolic, you ALWAYS say, "x represents y...."

Really?

So... is Time really Money? Or is it symbolic?

If The Lord's Supper were as the Roman Catholic Cult says it it, there would have been cannibalism in the Upper Room. But, there wasn't, was there?

Instead of having to invoke symbolism, maybe he said what he said with the knowledge that the apostles understood the symbolism in what he said.

Hoss

[taxcontrol]

If one applies that level of literal to the scriptures, then Peter is Satan. In the very same chapter that Catholics claim the establishment of Peter as the head of the Church (Mat 16), Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The scriptures are full of symbolism

[Last Dakotan]

“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”

/thread

[Springfield Reformer]

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

Not true. What jesus said is the normal structure of direct metaphor, A is B.  It is used all the time and in less controversial settings no one is confused by its meaning.  If I point to a map of Texas, and say, "This is Texas," you don't think I really mean the paper is actually a state with real people living on it.  At least I hope you don't.  That's because our brains are wired to spot the comparison of two dissimilar domains for the purpose of getting information by analogy.  It is one of the most basic methods by which we learn, we take a known object, and compare it to a less well known object, so we can learn something about that less well known object.  It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt.  By this new meaning, as Christ gave it, we are to remember what He has done to deliver us from our own slavery to sin.

Peace,

SR

[Iscool]

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

but He didn’t. He was quite clear.

“This is My body” and “This is My blood.”

Joh_6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Well this proves you to be 100% wrong...Have any more words of wisdom to bless us with???

[Gamecock]

**but He didn’t. He was quite clear.**

You sure about that?

John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” (Does He have splinters and hinges from the time of His birth?)

John 10:11: “I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (Did He really tend to literal sheep? Did He die for fluffy, white animals?)

John 15:1: “I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (Does He have roots and bunches of grapes dangling from His fingers?)

[Zenot]

I have always found that most Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) really miss the point. This was a repurposing of Passover and a direct fulfillment of the prophesy of the Passover. He had clearly become the Passover lamb, inspected and found without blemish, and meeting all the other rules.

The point isn’t that the symbolic cup and bread become His body and blood. This was a directive to continue with Passover with the celebration of this fulfillment.

Christian leaders miss the point when they celebrated this weekly or monthly. This is one of the 7 appointed feasts. (One could argue it is the first 3 rolled together.)

Why do Christians not celebrate all of the feasts as directed? Sadly, most Christians never learn of them in churches.

[qwertyz]

Congratulations on your hard work digging up these quotes. The problem is the underlying assumption that there is NOT an authoritative interpreter guided by the Holy Spirit to discern the truth of the matter. Is Cousin Billy Bob and Uncle Fred in 2015 really able to understand the mind of the Church 2000 years ago? Or is there a body (a shepherd, if you will) passing down the authentic Tradition about the Eucharist’s meaning?

Finally, there is the problem of consequences. If the Eucharist is just a symbol, its abuse shows disrespect, but little more. For Paul, however, the consequence was grave: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”

This is not how one talks about a symbol.

Keep up the good work — but understand that for many, it’s the first step to converting to Catholicism. (”To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”—Cardinal John Henry Newman)

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course the Eucharist is a SYMBOL of the body and blood of Christ. Nobody has ever denied that. St. Thomas Aquinas himself says the Eucharist is a symbol or SIGN. He says that the body and the blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist IN THE MANNER OF A SYMBOL.

This is most clearly seen when you consider that if the host is broken in two, each portion of the host contains THE WHOLE CHRIST, precisely because the breaking of the sign creates two pieces, each of which functions as a SIGN just as the one unbroken host did.

Christ is NOT “physically present” in the Eucharist, as so many amateur theologians have said. I.e., when the host is chewed, Christ’s flesh is not torn and his bones are not broken. When the Eucharistic species is moved from place to place, Christ in heaven is not moved about.

Christ is really, fully, substantially present in the Eucharist. The Church has always taught the the Eucharistic presence of Christ in the Eucharist IS TO BE WORSHIPED. I.e., we give the Eucharist the worship of LATRIA, the worship that is due to GOD ALONE.

This leaves absolutely no ambiguity. The Eucharist IS Jesus Christ, because the Eucharist IS the living, risen body of Jesus Christ.

The entire article is a misfire. It seizes on a few uses of the word “symbol” in relation to the Eucharist, and misinterprets them all as meaning “mere symbol.” The writings of all the authors quoted, taken as a whole, will not bear the interpretation that the Eucharist is a MERE symbol.

[CynicalBear]

Very interesting. We don’t see Catholics extolling those views of the Church fathers do we.

[CynicalBear]

He was quite clear in that same conversation to say “my words are spirit” and “the flesh profiteth nothing”. Why do Catholics stop before giving Christ the chance to explain?

[CynicalBear]

Why do Christians not celebrate all of the feasts as directed?<<

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

[CynicalBear]

Why do you insist on assigning sin to Jesus? If that had been real blood He would have been sinning and encouraging others to sin.

[Springfield Reformer]

”To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”—Cardinal John Henry Newman

Newman was wrong. But that's always possible when one is a mere fallible human.

As far as consequences are concerned, you have to start with the truth before you can know the consequences.  Paul's dire warning to the Corinthians had nothing to do with having an individual epiphany about the true but hidden substance of the bread and wine, but rather with some members of the body of believers who were being treated so disrespectfully, though they were themselves members of the body of Christ, which point he makes repeatedly throughout that whole stretch of the book.  That whole context thing.  So it isn't, "recognize Aquinas' alchemy," it's "recognize the body of Christ in that brother you're treating badly, because if you're doing bad things to him, you're doing bad things to Jesus Himself." Yep, now that would have dire consequences.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

>>Eucharistic presence of Christ in the Eucharist IS TO BE WORSHIPED. I.e., we give the Eucharist the worship of LATRIA, the worship that is due to GOD ALONE.<<

A likeness of God to be worshipped you say? Scripture calls that idolatry.

>>Christ is NOT “physically present” in the Eucharist<<

“CANON I. If any one denies that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but says that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or power; let him be anathema.

“CANON II. If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species Only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, 13th session)

[CynicalBear]

So you like Newman?

The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.[Cardinal Newman - Development of Christian Doctrine, pg 373]