Do you view Holy Communion as Literal or Symbolic?

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

I'll stick with what Jesus Christ taught, what His Apostles St. John and St. Paul repeated, and what the Early Church unanimously believed. John 6 is sufficent.

John 6:

"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

 

[ResidentAlien]

I'll stick with what Jesus Christ taught, what His Apostles St. John and St. Paul repeated, and what the Early Church unanimously believed. John 6 is sufficent.

John 6:

"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

More scriptures to support a sagging foundations.

If you're gonna claim to perform magic tricks like turning bread into the body of Christ, at least try to make it convincing. What you do is like a magician waving a wand and proclaiming: "The person you see before you has now disappeared."

 

[ResidentAlien]

If a Roman Catholic can read Yahweh's word, compare that with the practices of the RCC, and still come away thinking it's His true church on earth, there are some serious delusion issues going on.

 

[Jocund]

If a Roman Catholic can read Yahweh's word, compare that with the practices of the RCC, and still come away thinking it's His true church on earth, there are some serious delusion issues going on.

I don't understand. Are you alleging that the RCC contradicts scripture? Or just that you feel it isn't right?

 

[ResidentAlien]

I don't understand. Are you alleging that the RCC contradicts scripture? Or just that you feel it isn't right?

I'm saying what Roman Catholicism practices is so far removed from what scripture teaches it's not even in the same universe. It's not a little off, it's all the way off. I'm sure you'll say no, I misunderstand; but it's you my friend who misunderstands. If you can't see something so obvious then nothing I can say will help you.

I've talked to former Catholics who laugh at how absurd the whole thing is. It is indeed laughable.

 

[loveme1]

The Lord was teaching us Faith.. Teaching us the New Covenant. It was a representation that He is the sacrificial Lamb… the offering of Himself to Save us. You have stiff necked people believing they had the law of Moses that would save them. The eating of the mana in the wilderness.. all had to come to pass to prepare the way for the Promise.. for Our Lord to come in the mortal vessel.. All was part of the Promise GOD made to Abraham. We don’t need to eat bread and drink wine as a custom for Salvation. Though using it as a symbol to remind yourselves of the New Testament isn’t an issue… if it is a reminder of our Lord and Saviour and His Testament then fine. The Lord was resurrected and went off up into Heaven. Hopefully He will return soon.

 

[Jocund]

I'm saying what Roman Catholicism practices is so far removed from what scripture teaches it's not even in the same universe. It's not a little off, it's all the way off. I'm sure you'll say no, I misunderstand; but it's you my friend who misunderstands. If you can't see something so obvious then nothing I can say will help you.

I've talked to former Catholics who laugh at how absurd the whole thing is. It is indeed laughable.

I was raised Lutheran myself. I grew up being told 'how wrong' the RCC was about a whole whack of different topics. The big topics that we were taught to have issue with included things like praying to Patron Saints instead of directly to God, indulgences, the Papacy, the reverence for Mary, the offering of only bread for the Eucharist, etc. Even the idea of "incessant prayers" with the Hail Mary seemed to directly contradict scripture.

I wasn't raised in a way to give reverence or respect to the RCC ways. We were taught that RCs were misguided or lost. It was implied that RCs were a bit stuck up because Lutheran pastors will give the Eucharist to any believer during communion, regardless of their denomination, but RCs only give the Eucharist to RCs in good standing.

That said, when I started to study the Bible on my own, different lines popped out that made me reconsider some of the thoughts that I was exposed to. Particularly lines like when Paul says "an idol is nothing in itself" or the concept of "honouring father and mother" by repurposing nonChristian stories and concepts into Christian ones. There is a cultural history that is preserved in the RCC.

It made me realize and reconsider that the thinking behind many of the rites, rituals, and conventions within RCC weren't necessarily contrary to scripture, they just existed as a unique school of thought that uses scripture as a foundation and reaches beyond. In that sense, I disagree with the notion that the RCC interpretation would be "invalid" simply because of how far beyond scripture it may reach. A far reach does not necessarily make it invalid relative to the foundational material. From an exegetic sense, I think many great thinkers over the course of time laid the foundation for the consistency and coherency of RCC doctrine from Aquinas to Augustine, etc. Maybe there is some contradiction, but I haven't found it yet. And even if a proponent of the RCC makes a mistake in the logic of their position, we would have to look further to see if that is a mistake that genuinely exists in the source material or just by a passing misunderstanding by the author.

It made me realize that I don't really understand RCC doctrine. I went back to the drawing board of researching, and I'm still researching until I find some distinct contradiction to scripture or satisfactorily find none at all. I haven't had the time to look into the specifics of Papal decrees over the years, etc. Despite having a lifetime to think about the RCC, I still feel very green to the topic. It is my experience that the average RC will not necessarily have a firm grasp of RCC concepts, even if they are confirmed and in good standing in their church.

I think things like praying to Patron Saints can become idolatrous if not understood correctly, and so in that sense, if one is tempted to idolatry, it could be the case that it is better for that person to avoid the RCC.

I think that it may be the case that several priests/teachers in the RCC faith can also have a bad understanding of what the genuine RCC position is.

In order to come to a good conclusion about the RCC and its doctrine, I need someone's insight into what exactly they find contradictory.

Lines like "but it's you my friend who misunderstands. If you can't see something so obvious then nothing I can say will help you." are good expressions about how you feel about the topic, and it could be the case that your position is well founded, but it might also be the case that your position is not well founded. I can't assess that until someone proposes a rational argument to back up their position.

There are two levels to this: 1) Is the concept valid and consistent with scripture? 2) If valid, is the concept compelling or uncompelling? It might be the case that something "feels" wrong with the doctrine despite being valid and coherent with scripture. Validity and the "feels wrong" aspect are two different conversations.

 

[Magenta]

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Too bad Catholics cannot even hear the words of their own prayer.

Of course some Catholics have told us they don't pray to Mary.

Others will say you must go through her to get to Christ.

Of course the RCC is culpable in that they elevate Mary, and the adherents must follow suit or risk excommunication.

 

[Nehemiah6]

A far reach does not necessarily make it invalid relative to the foundational material.

The entire foundation of the Catholic Church is invalid. It is False Christianity (such like Mormonism). And more importantly their doctrine of salvation is OPPOSED to salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. And that is exactly what you will find in the Council of Trent (which is still authoritative for the RCC). So no matter what your opinion is, the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Jocund]

The entire foundation of the Catholic Church is invalid. It is False Christianity (such like Mormonism). And more importantly their doctrine of salvation is OPPOSED to salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. And that is exactly what you will find in the Council of Trent (which is still authoritative for the RCC). So no matter what your opinion is, the facts speak for themselves.

The founding of the RCC through Peter might be uncompelling, but that is different than something being invalid.

The Council of Trent bit is interesting. Enc. Britannica summarizes that works vs faith bit to say that faith "was inwardly justified by cooperating with divine grace". Which would be another way of saying that the act of believing itself was considered works. Based on that brief encyclopedia entry, that isn't at all at odds with scripture.

Either we need to dive deeper into the actual specific verbiage (in the manner that it was ratified by a sitting Pope) of the Council of Trent determinations, or dig somewhere else to determine exactly what was meant by "works" in that case.

 

[Magenta]

Particularly lines like when Paul says "an idol is nothing in itself"

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the
faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons...

1 Corinthians 10:18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices
participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or
that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to
God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of
the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the
table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

The entire foundation of the Catholic Church is invalid. It is False Christianity (such like Mormonism). And more importantly their doctrine of salvation is OPPOSED to salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. And that is exactly what you will find in the Council of Trent (which is still authoritative for the RCC). So no matter what your opinion is, the facts speak for themselves.

Hi Nehemiah.

The foundation of the Catholic Faith has always been the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity - a doctrine all Evangelical Christians accept. As the Athanasian Creed of St. Athanasius, a 4th Century Alexandrian Catholic Bishop, and Nicene Church Father put it: "the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship Trinity in Unity ... the right Faith is ... the Son of God is God and Man" etc. Even Martin Luther called the Athanasian Creed "the Most Beautiful Creed in Christendom".

In the 4th Century, there were two other major denominations apart from the Catholic Church: the Arians and the Macedonians. The Arians denied the Divinity of Christ, and the Macedonians denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church taught the Trinity.

Similarly, today, the Catholic Church teaches the Holy Eucharist, that the Bread and Wine are truly changed during the Divine Liturgy into the Body and Blood of Christ. Most Protestant denominations disagree, but Orthodox Christians, and some Anglicans and Lutherans agree. A study of Church History shows virtually no one questioned the Real Presence before the 1500s A.D. The plain words of Christ in John 6, and the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle in 1 Corinthians, chapters 5,10 and 11 suggest Holy Communion is not just a symbol but the True Body/Blood of Christ. Some of those verses were quoted.

Regarding soteriology, that's being discussed in the OSAS thread. Among Protestants, Arminian and Wesleyan/Methodist theology agrees with Catholic soteriology. Justification+Perseverance=Salvation. Justification is by Grace through Faith. Perseverance is God's Gift given through Prayer, through Holy Communion etc.

God Bless.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I was raised Lutheran myself. I grew up being told 'how wrong' the RCC was about a whole whack of different topics. The big topics that we were taught to have issue with included things like praying to Patron Saints instead of directly to God, indulgences, the Papacy, the reverence for Mary, the offering of only bread for the Eucharist, etc. Even the idea of "incessant prayers" with the Hail Mary seemed to directly contradict scripture.

I wasn't raised in a way to give reverence or respect to the RCC ways. We were taught that RCs were misguided or lost. It was implied that RCs were a bit stuck up because Lutheran pastors will give the Eucharist to any believer during communion, regardless of their denomination, but RCs only give the Eucharist to RCs in good standing.

That said, when I started to study the Bible on my own, different lines popped out that made me reconsider some of the thoughts that I was exposed to. Particularly lines like when Paul says "an idol is nothing in itself" or the concept of "honouring father and mother" by repurposing nonChristian stories and concepts into Christian ones. There is a cultural history that is preserved in the RCC.

It made me realize and reconsider that the thinking behind many of the rites, rituals, and conventions within RCC weren't necessarily contrary to scripture, they just existed as a unique school of thought that uses scripture as a foundation and reaches beyond. In that sense, I disagree with the notion that the RCC interpretation would be "invalid" simply because of how far beyond scripture it may reach. A far reach does not necessarily make it invalid relative to the foundational material. From an exegetic sense, I think many great thinkers over the course of time laid the foundation for the consistency and coherency of RCC doctrine from Aquinas to Augustine, etc. Maybe there is some contradiction, but I haven't found it yet. And even if a proponent of the RCC makes a mistake in the logic of their position, we would have to look further to see if that is a mistake that genuinely exists in the source material or just by a passing misunderstanding by the author.

It made me realize that I don't really understand RCC doctrine. I went back to the drawing board of researching, and I'm still researching until I find some distinct contradiction to scripture or satisfactorily find none at all. I haven't had the time to look into the specifics of Papal decrees over the years, etc. Despite having a lifetime to think about the RCC, I still feel very green to the topic. It is my experience that the average RC will not necessarily have a firm grasp of RCC concepts, even if they are confirmed and in good standing in their church.

I think things like praying to Patron Saints can become idolatrous if not understood correctly, and so in that sense, if one is tempted to idolatry, it could be the case that it is better for that person to avoid the RCC.

I think that it may be the case that several priests/teachers in the RCC faith can also have a bad understanding of what the genuine RCC position is.

In order to come to a good conclusion about the RCC and its doctrine, I need someone's insight into what exactly they find contradictory.

Lines like "but it's you my friend who misunderstands. If you can't see something so obvious then nothing I can say will help you." are good expressions about how you feel about the topic, and it could be the case that your position is well founded, but it might also be the case that your position is not well founded. I can't assess that until someone proposes a rational argument to back up their position.

There are two levels to this: 1) Is the concept valid and consistent with scripture? 2) If valid, is the concept compelling or uncompelling? It might be the case that something "feels" wrong with the doctrine despite being valid and coherent with scripture. Validity and the "feels wrong" aspect are two different conversations.

Am I really supposed to read all this? You don't seem to be making a point but rather writing an essay.

 

[Magenta]

Particularly lines like when Paul says "an idol is nothing in itself"

1-Timothy4-1plus1-Corinthians10-18-21
Thank you for the inspiration

 

[mustaphadrink]

Musthaveadrink,I think you had too many drinks. I'll just ignore your comment that's full of assumptions.

Likewise.

 

[mustaphadrink]

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..."

A reply that basically says nothing. Apart from being totally gratuitous because you haven't got a Ph.D. to back your opinions, which are a non requirement if you want to achieve a Ph.D. You only get a Ph.D. if you present facts. Of course if you rely on opinions, facts do not haver much weight.

 

[mustaphadrink]

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)

I am sorry but no such thing happens. I asked a dedicated catholic what the blood of Jesús tastes like and he said wine.

 

[mustaphadrink]

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 is one of those things that the church has turned into a necessary ritual to make our Christianity authentic. As you study scripture and the background to the New Testament Church which I have done, you will discover a lack of ritual. They had that under the law in Judaism, but the new way set them free from it because it was seen as necessary for salvation, judging by the demand for new converts to be circumcised.

Their mantra was Christ Alone and that has been fought over for ever and a day. For too many believers it is Christ and communion. Christ and church attendance. Christ and tithing. Christ and wearing the right clothing. Christ and swinging incense. Christ and fancy dress ups. Christ and I don't know what.

I have a very simple statement of faith and that is Jesus Christ is Lord. According to scripture that is all you need. If Jesus Christ is Lord you get to know him, not about him.

 

[mustaphadrink]

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.

Your comments are typical of those who ignore the teaching of scripture, preferring what the denomination teaches.

1. Holy communion (sic) has nothing at all to do with sanctification. At least not in the ten different versions of the Bible that I have.
2. Discerning the Lord's body is the body of Christ (the believers) not the physical body of Christ himself.
3. We do this when we don't eat and ignore those who could not contribute to the evening meal.
4. It does not become his body because they were forbidden to eat human flesh and drink human blood.
5. Believing what you do is an indication that you do not stick with what the scripture teaches. You are sticking with what the denomination teaches.
6. If communion has been practiced by three quarters of church history your way, why doesn't the scripture support said teaching.
7. The same as the church has taught to be baptised in the Trinity, yet the New Testament church did not baptised in the trinity.

 

[Aaron56]

Communion is one of those things that the church has turned into a necessary ritual to make our Christianity authentic. As you study scripture and the background to the New Testament Church which I have done, you will discover a lack of ritual. They had that under the law in Judaism, but the new way set them free from it because it was seen as necessary for salvation, judging by the demand for new converts to be circumcised.

Their mantra was Christ Alone and that has been fought over for ever and a day. For too many believers it is Christ and communion. Christ and church attendance. Christ and tithing. Christ and wearing the right clothing. Christ and swinging incense. Christ and fancy dress ups. Christ and I don't know what.

I have a very simple statement of faith and that is Jesus Christ is Lord. According to scripture that is all you need. If Jesus Christ is Lord you get to know him, not about him.

No argument from me. Liturgy almost always gets in the way of relationship. Some practices are for the edifying of the body some are for establishing a person's identity some are for anchoring the soul, etc. These practices should not be seen as liturgical but, rather, common among the people of God. Communion, for example, can be practiced with table wine and bread at almost any meal.