Do you view Holy Communion as Literal or Symbolic?
- Thread starter XavierJesusLovesIndia
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I studied the subject for two years for a Ph.D. but did not find any evidence bread and wine was taken as a separate event. Hospitality was a given if you went to a Jewish home and they ALWAYS set out food and wine for the guest. Never a sip of wine and a piece of bread.
There’s a bit of truth in what most are saying.
Communion represents an eternal covenant so, because eternal things are not truncated by time, the symbolism is more substantial than just liturgy.
The wine and bread are NOT real flesh and blood. Transubstantiation is a Roman church myth codified to monopolize people’s connection with God. It began in the 12th century.
Because of the above, it may seem poignant to reject the practice outright. My counsel is to make communion a normal part of day-to-day meals. God used the most common elements of every day life (table wine, bread, planting, harvesting, water, etc.) to remind us of the most spiritual things.
Communion represents an eternal covenant so, because eternal things are not truncated by time, the symbolism is more substantial than just liturgy.
The wine and bread are NOT real flesh and blood. Transubstantiation is a Roman church myth codified to monopolize people’s connection with God. It began in the 12th century.
Because of the above, it may seem poignant to reject the practice outright. My counsel is to make communion a normal part of day-to-day meals. God used the most common elements of every day life (table wine, bread, planting, harvesting, water, etc.) to remind us of the most spiritual things.
Musthaveadrink,I think you had too many drinks. I'll just ignore your comment that's full of assumptions.
A random trivia tidbit:
Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the nature of the Trinity are all deeply rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, namely in the field of ontology.
The RCC Eucharist transubstantiation is the process of the ontology of bread being changed into Christ (the bread wholly becomes the blood and body of Christ. For the priest, the wine also wholly becomes the blood and body of Christ).
Consubstantiation in Lutheranism is the process of the Christ being ontologically present in addition to the preexisting ontological properties of the bread and wine. There are two schools of thought: one is that the whole of Christ is present in both bread and wine and that each becomes respectively symbolic of body and blood in addition to the literal presence of Christ. The other school of thought is that the bread gains the property of literally being the body of Christ, the wine gains the property of literally being the blood of Christ, and in addition to that the whole of Christ is present in the process.
None of this topic will make any sense unless one takes the time to understand Greek philosophy.
We are still left with some questions and ambiguity regarding what is meant by "body" and "blood" during the last supper. When we consider the transfigured form of Christ... was Christ transfigured thereby changing His appearance before the witnesses? Or were the witnesses transfigured in order to see Christ as He actually was? If we apply this question to the principle of the Eucharist, is it that the bread is changed to contain the transfigured Christ? Or the untransfigured? Is it earthly flesh that we are talking about? Or "spiritual flesh" (if there were such a thing)? Earthly flesh vs. Spiritual flesh would still both be pointing to literal things, but different. It could be the case that by Christ breaking bread that He was referring to a duality of the physical bread and the heavenly bread present in that which He offered.
Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the nature of the Trinity are all deeply rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, namely in the field of ontology.
The RCC Eucharist transubstantiation is the process of the ontology of bread being changed into Christ (the bread wholly becomes the blood and body of Christ. For the priest, the wine also wholly becomes the blood and body of Christ).
Consubstantiation in Lutheranism is the process of the Christ being ontologically present in addition to the preexisting ontological properties of the bread and wine. There are two schools of thought: one is that the whole of Christ is present in both bread and wine and that each becomes respectively symbolic of body and blood in addition to the literal presence of Christ. The other school of thought is that the bread gains the property of literally being the body of Christ, the wine gains the property of literally being the blood of Christ, and in addition to that the whole of Christ is present in the process.
None of this topic will make any sense unless one takes the time to understand Greek philosophy.
We are still left with some questions and ambiguity regarding what is meant by "body" and "blood" during the last supper. When we consider the transfigured form of Christ... was Christ transfigured thereby changing His appearance before the witnesses? Or were the witnesses transfigured in order to see Christ as He actually was? If we apply this question to the principle of the Eucharist, is it that the bread is changed to contain the transfigured Christ? Or the untransfigured? Is it earthly flesh that we are talking about? Or "spiritual flesh" (if there were such a thing)? Earthly flesh vs. Spiritual flesh would still both be pointing to literal things, but different. It could be the case that by Christ breaking bread that He was referring to a duality of the physical bread and the heavenly bread present in that which He offered.
Literal. The bread (host) and the wine are transformed (consecration) after the Priest says, "Do this in remembrance of me" The actual bread (host) and the wine is not symbolic, but it is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
There have been some cases where the consecrated communion host actually bled even in the United States.
'Bleeding host' under investigation by SL Catholic diocese | KUTV
Eucharistic Miracle? ‘Bleeding Host’ Phenomenon Reported in Dioceses Worldwide| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)
There have been some cases where the consecrated communion host actually bled even in the United States.
'Bleeding host' under investigation by SL Catholic diocese | KUTV
Eucharistic Miracle? ‘Bleeding Host’ Phenomenon Reported in Dioceses Worldwide| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)
Roman Catholicism has led many into its heresy and will no doubt lead many more before it's all over. It was all told beforehand in His word. But unfortunately for Satan he won't get everyone.
In many cases, the PhD is granted as long as the student "toes the party line" and tells the approvers what they want to hear.
Simply having a PhD is not a guarantee you are correct.
Many professors in universities and seminaries have "agendas" that require the student being mentored to agree with their belief.
Why did Jesus make it a separate event at the Passover meal? Why did he not simply say, "well, now that we've completed our meal, remember that when you eat the bread and drink the wine, you are eating my flesh and drinking my blood..."
Holy Communion is key to sanctification. It is that Daily Bread we ask for in Our Lord's Prayer. St. Paul said we should discern the Lord's Body when we eat. We do this by exercising faith in God's Word. God said "This is My Body", therefore it becomes His Body.
Likewise, when He said, "Let there be Light", there was Light. Even Martin Luther agreed. Only John Calvin disagree. For myself, I stick with what the Holy Scriptures clearly teach, and what the Whole Church unanimously believed for 1500 years -3/4ths of Church History. Holy Communion is clearly literal.
John 6 is probably the most evident proof.
God Bless.
Likewise, when He said, "Let there be Light", there was Light. Even Martin Luther agreed. Only John Calvin disagree. For myself, I stick with what the Holy Scriptures clearly teach, and what the Whole Church unanimously believed for 1500 years -3/4ths of Church History. Holy Communion is clearly literal.
John 6 is probably the most evident proof.
God Bless.
What is "Holy Communion?" I don't recall reading that in the New Testament. Sounds like some manmade thing.
St. Paul the Apostle answers your question
"10:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
10:17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.
10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
The Early Church unanimously believed the Lord's Word in John 6 was literal, as a brief study of Church History will show.
Link on what the Early Church believed about the Eucharist: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas) is the Greek Word for thanksgiving that the Lord used https://biblehub.com/luke/22-17.htm
E.g. "St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)"
Link on what the Early Church believed about the Eucharist: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas) is the Greek Word for thanksgiving that the Lord used https://biblehub.com/luke/22-17.htm
E.g. "St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)"
Yeah, I believe Jesus is literally present in a wafer. I believe the wafer has literally been transformed in His flesh. Doesn't look like flesh, doesn't taste like flesh, but wow, it's flesh! This better than Houdini and far more lucrative.
You people who believe this nonsense, I've got some ocean-front property in Kansas I'm just dying to unload. Who would like to be the first bidder?
You people who believe this nonsense, I've got some ocean-front property in Kansas I'm just dying to unload. Who would like to be the first bidder?
As St. Thomas Aquinas, the Great Medieval Theologian said: "I believe all that the Son of God has spoken; There is nothing truer Truth's own Word". Faith means believing without seeing, because God has declared it to be Truth. Christ is very clear in John Chapter 6.
For those who need to see to believe, there have been Eucharistic Miracles, where the Flesh and the Blood are visibly transformed. As the Church Fathers ask. He turned water into wine at Cana, yet some find it hard to believe He can turn wine into His Blood?
"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
For those who need to see to believe, there have been Eucharistic Miracles, where the Flesh and the Blood are visibly transformed. As the Church Fathers ask. He turned water into wine at Cana, yet some find it hard to believe He can turn wine into His Blood?
"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
- The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood...
- The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)."
You better snap out of it. You're not heading to a good place. You're deceived big time.
Hey, I've got the original chalice from the Lord's supper. Do you guys need it or do you already have enough of these?