Eucharist

[Terry Sampson]

These are commonly used verses that kind of get pushed under the rug after awhile. These things need to be thought out more rather than regurgitated (to put it bluntly). It makes it easier to express it in your own words.

I just wanted those verses posted, for the record, and to work off of if I added my own stuff.

I want to explain it how I see it but I can't figure how to shorten it up.

Many a student in catechism class has wished for the same thing.

Basically, there is no need for transubstantiation

I'd like to think of myself as a realist. I personally wouldn't start with "real blood" and "real body" when introducing a five-year old to the Eucharistic concepts. Lord knows what they'll tell their friends at school at show-and-tell time. Memorial event works fine for me ... for starters. But the church's frequent "re-enactment" of the event, in the high churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican) heightens/recognizes the importance of the original event and the spiritual benefit of its re-enactment and calls the modern-day re-enactment a Sacrament.
There are two kinds of Sacraments: those ordained by Jesus (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) and those not ordained by Jesus. Lutherans acknowledge only two: Baptism and Holy Communion. Catholics and Anglicans (I believe) affirm five others which Jesus did not affirm.
A Sacrament is virtually a "means of Grace". Do not underestimate the psychological and spiritual power conveyed by the term among believers in them.

So, what is the event re-enacted in modern day "Lord's Suppers"/"Eucharists"? Ordinary bread and wine are blessed and when blessed are no longer to be just ordinary bread and wine. In the priest's/pastor's blessing each is linked to Jesus' original last supper with his disciples, and with the original Passover Meal that Jews celebrate once a year., the first of which was celebrated when God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt.

This is where my words get challenged. I can draw some dots on paper and try to say something about each dot. But no one dot is important, What is important is that all of the dots together represent something far, far greater than a simple retelling of the story of Jesus' last supper with his disciples. For me and for many Christian believers, the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is like "the Vilna Gate", which I am sure will be meaningless to you now. Harel13 introduced me to it in Need help with an art mystery

This is the Vilna Gate:

Now, take a quick look at the "tunnel perspective" that is inherent in the two-dimensional Vilna Gate.
tunnel perspective pictures - Google Search
That is what I think of the Eucharist. It is a fairly brief event in a Mass or in a Church service. It's a here and now event. But its source is through a long tunnel in time and space. Along the way through that tunnel are all the people who have celebrated the same or similar event, back to the first "Lord's Supper" and the Passover meal that he celebrated with his disciples, and on, beyond that, other Passover meals celebrated by Jews, all the way to the first Passover meal and the reason for that meal and who ordained it.

It's not a brief story that can be told completely and quickly, but the recurring message is the same throughout the whole tunnel: God delivers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I know this will always be a silly debate.

Do you catholics and non-catholics actually believe you/they are drinking real blood and eating real flesh (cannibalism)? Please say no.

I asked a priest this but I wanted to hear what you guys thought.

I would say that even if transubstantiation is real, then according to Paul part of us will not be able to believe in it. Therefore what a spiritual person believes about spiritual things may be different from what the individual believes in total. Perhaps what they believe in their heart and in their head can differ. To me this explains some things about Roman Catholics such as their willingness to see things as either secular or heavenly.

Based on Pauline texts people have 2 or more parts which conflict within ourselves such that our state of being is always in tension. Paul likes to describe this using Eden imagery although he doesn't fully explain his views or go over whatever he would have explained in person. He doesn't tell us if whether he gets this from the '2 Adams' interpretation of Genesis or not. He seems to view the serpent in the garden as linked with sin in the person, maybe. His extant letters provide fragments of his ideas not full lessons. Its seems he views life as a fight to be fought between the parts within the person.

 

[dfnj]

I know this will always be a silly debate.

Do you catholics and non-catholics actually believe you/they are drinking real blood and eating real flesh (cannibalism)? Please say no.

I asked a priest this but I wanted to hear what you guys thought.

I worked with a guy from Indonesia who ask me if I drank blood. It took me a while to understand what he was asking but what is was asking was, "are you a Christian?"

 

[Harel13]

I honestly don't see it as symbolism. I just find it grossly misunderstood and/or the language use doesn't reflect the nature of communion. The Roman Church has been trying to figure out the nature of the Eucharist for years. Some other Catholic Churches leave it alone as a mystery.

*scratching head* Then what is it, if not symbolism? How do you view it? Is it transubstantiation as Wikipedia puts it?

 

[Harel13]

Catholics and others with similar ideas about the Eucharist, let me get this straight: the wine and the bread spiritually become the blood and flesh?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would say that even if transubstantiation is real, then according to Paul part of us will not be able to believe in it. Therefore what a spiritual person believes about spiritual things may be different from what the individual believes in total. Perhaps what they believe in their heart and in their head can differ. To me this explains some things about Roman Catholics such as their willingness to see things as either secular or heavenly.

Based on Pauline texts people have 2 or more parts which conflict within ourselves such that our state of being is always in tension. Paul likes to describe this using Eden imagery although he doesn't fully explain his views or go over whatever he would have explained in person. He doesn't tell us if whether he gets this from the '2 Adams' interpretation of Genesis or not. He seems to view the serpent in the garden as linked with sin in the person, maybe. His extant letters provide fragments of his ideas not full lessons. Its seems he views life as a fight to be fought between the parts within the person.

I go off experiences first. The Bible doesnt hold importance in my life.

Have you experienced Catholic mass? (Not interact or watched but personally experienced)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I worked with a guy from Indonesia who ask me if I drank blood. It took me a while to understand what he was asking but what is was asking was, "are you a Christian?"

Wow. I can see why he'd ask that but the context...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because each denomination has its own description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and its own names for that Sacrament, you could drown in words from every denomination. Quite possibly, though, the following words from Luther's Small Catechism will be among the briefest on the matter: The Small Catechism - Book of Concord [ Note that Lutherans teach "consubstantiation" ]

• The Sacrament of the Altar
  • As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
    
    What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
    
    It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
    
    Where is this written?
    
    The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
    
    Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
    
    After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
    
    What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
    
    That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
    
    How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
    
    It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
    
    Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
    
    Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.
    
    But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

I know all of this by experience. I read the Bible and studied a bit of the catechism but never took classes. You'd have to break up your verses. I'm not sure which verse refers to what. If you do, don't bold and italic. If you do, I'd change it regardless just a friendly sugestion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

*scratching head* Then what is it, if not symbolism? How do you view it? Is it transubstantiation as Wikipedia puts it?

How I experienced it is not really a book thing. The RCC tried to explain it for years. Othorodox leaves it as a mystery.

Blood/body means life/death. Communion brings mass to bring in (lbw) the BB and the Church resurrects as a mass. Eucharist is the cornerstone of communion and the meal what holds it together. Breaking bread.

My OP asks do non Catholics actually believe the Eucharist is blood and flesh? I hope not because Catholics don't eat flesh and blood. Least that's what the priest told me even though I knew so myself. I was hoping at that time he wasn't delusional. Thank God he wasn't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Catholics and others with similar ideas about the Eucharist, let me get this straight: the wine and the bread spiritually become the blood and flesh?

No. The Eucharist is a concrecrated meal given by Christ to being mass together since mass makes Christ present by the Eucharist.

It's not symbolism because there is a real meal, real church, real mass, priest, Bible, and real values Christians live daily.

The flesh and blood has already been resurrected according to Christianity so it can only be real by the body in communion by way of food-a real meal not symbolic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just wanted those verses posted, for the record, and to work off of if I added my own stuff.

Many a student in catechism class has wished for the same thing.

I'd like to think of myself as a realist. I personally wouldn't start with "real blood" and "real body" when introducing a five-year old to the Eucharistic concepts. Lord knows what they'll tell their friends at school at show-and-tell time. Memorial event works fine for me ... for starters. But the church's frequent "re-enactment" of the event, in the high churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican) heightens/recognizes the importance of the original event and the spiritual benefit of its re-enactment and calls the modern-day re-enactment a Sacrament.
There are two kinds of Sacraments: those ordained by Jesus (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) and those not ordained by Jesus. Lutherans acknowledge only two: Baptism and Holy Communion. Catholics and Anglicans (I believe) affirm five others which Jesus did not affirm.
A Sacrament is virtually a "means of Grace". Do not underestimate the psychological and spiritual power conveyed by the term among believers in them.

So, what is the event re-enacted in modern day "Lord's Suppers"/"Eucharists"? Ordinary bread and wine are blessed and when blessed are no longer to be just ordinary bread and wine. In the priest's/pastor's blessing each is linked to Jesus' original last supper with his disciples, and with the original Passover Meal that Jews celebrate once a year., the first of which was celebrated when God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt.

This is where my words get challenged. I can draw some dots on paper and try to say something about each dot. But no one dot is important, What is important is that all of the dots together represent something far, far greater than a simple retelling of the story of Jesus' last supper with his disciples. For me and for many Christian believers, the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is like "the Vilna Gate", which I am sure will be meaningless to you now. Harel13 introduced me to it in Need help with an art mystery

This is the Vilna Gate:

View attachment 37648
Now, take a quick look at the "tunnel perspective" that is inherent in the two-dimensional Vilna Gate.
tunnel perspective pictures - Google Search
That is what I think of the Eucharist. It is a fairly brief event in a Mass or in a Church service. It's a here and now event. But its source is through a long tunnel in time and space. Along the way through that tunnel are all the people who have celebrated the same or similar event, back to the first "Lord's Supper" and the Passover meal that he celebrated with his disciples, and on, beyond that, other Passover meals celebrated by Jews, all the way to the first Passover meal and the reason for that meal and who ordained it.

It's not a brief story that can be told completely and quickly, but the recurring message is the same throughout the whole tunnel: God delivers.

I would phrase it as a concrecrated meal issued by Christ. Breaking bread lets the body experience his passion in a Eucharistic meal.

Saying it's real blood and body is misleading hence the OP.

 

[dfnj]

Wow. I can see why he'd ask that but the context...

I ask him if he was a Muslim. This was in the 1980s when Muslims were still considered to be human beings. It was just friendly chit-chat. I just want to ask him about his beliefs. He was very friendly.

At the time I became really good friends with Sikh. He was one of the nicest most spiritual people I've ever met. I'm always upset when I hear stories like this:

After 9/11, turbans made Sikhs targets - CNN

Sikh's never cut their hair as part of their religious discipline. My friend told me underneath the turban is all is original uncut hair. I really liked the guy. His spirit was so light and friendly.

 

[exchemist]

In any case, my point there is that no-one is saying wine = actual, real blood.

Blood tastes good though. I could convert and live without black pudding, but black pudding is good.

I think the idea of consuming Christ's body and blood is bound up with the symbolism of a sacrificial offering, a bit like the burnt offerings of flesh made to God made in the Old Testament. Christ gives us himself, his own body, to heal us and help us.

@Vouthon's thoughts on the idea of drinking his blood being perhaps deliberately shocking does feel right. Christ did set out to shock his disciples by overturning established ideas in a number of ways: you see it repeatedly in the gospels.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, they are symbolic representations of blood and flesh. When Christ instituted the communion meal, it was bread and wine. He clearly was speaking symbolically.

You say that as a Catholic, or a non-Catholic?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I believe we humans are all a mixture of alien and ape. The ape is the problem.

The alien may be transcendence, but the ape is the blessing.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The evidence is absolutely clear that in a chemical sense the bread and wine do not change into the body and blood of Christ.

As an Anglican I am free to understand this mystery in my own fashion.

However Jesus did ordain that we do remember him in the Eucharist, as he instructed at the last supper.
Where he did liken the bread and wine to his flesh and blood.
We are encouraged to believe that Jesus, the saints and the entire congregation of heaven are present at the Eucharist.
It is believed by many that there is, and has only ever has been, one Eucharist, and that through time we are all present and celebrate it together.

That includes the heavenly host, the saints and everyone who has ever partaken of it, they are doing so as one.
This is the coming together of the entire congregation of the church of God, in a celebration of Jesus life death and resurrection, in his presence, as he instructed us to do.

We do so, In the words that have come down to us as "do this all of you in remembrance of me"

This I feel is a more realistic way to think of the Eucharist. Rather than think about an un-necessary and unrealistic magical conversion of bread and wine.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm amazed no one has cited the relevant passage from John 6 yet, so here it is for reference:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.” Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So 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. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, they are symbolic representations of blood and flesh. When Christ instituted the communion meal, it was bread and wine. He clearly was speaking symbolically.

He wasn't. He actually was sacrificed in the flesh (as so christianity goes) and people actually believe his blood "washed away" their sins-not symbolically but literally. It's a literal relationship with christ, therefore a literal last supper, and a literal breaking of the bread.

The bread is the cornerstone of communion between brothers of christ. The person who breaks the bread is the cornerstone of communion (at the table). So, christ is the cornerstone of communion and is the bread of life insofar that the two cannot be separated from each other.

When you call the Eucharist symbolic, you call christ passion symbolic. When catholics consume bread and wine that is exactly what they are consuming-the lord's meal. Actual bread and wine not haired flesh and wine.

They are literally making jesus present by the Eucharist by literal communion and the only way they can benefit from literal communion is to eat at the same literal table with christ.

I assume the Passion isn't symbolic therefore neither is the lord's supper and Eucharist. It's confusing how catholics explain it, though. The use of "Is" people don't think about the context of what they are saying. It's contextual not symbolic.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I know all of this by experience. I read the Bible and studied a bit of the catechism but never took classes. You'd have to break up your verses. I'm not sure which verse refers to what. If you do, don't bold and italic. If you do, I'd change it regardless just a friendly sugestion.

Thanks. Your points are noted and taken. Because you acknowledge experiential familiarity with catechism style of presentation, there was no need for my post; ergo, no need to change what I said; just a need to delete the post, which I have done. No response to this post is expected or hoped for.

 

[shmogie]

He wasn't. He actually was sacrificed in the flesh (as so christianity goes) and people actually believe his blood "washed away" their sins-not symbolically but literally. It's a literal relationship with christ, therefore a literal last supper, and a literal breaking of the bread.

The bread is the cornerstone of communion between brothers of christ. The person who breaks the bread is the cornerstone of communion (at the table). So, christ is the cornerstone of communion and is the bread of life insofar that the two cannot be separated from each other.

When you call the Eucharist symbolic, you call christ passion symbolic. When catholics consume bread and wine that is exactly what they are consuming-the lord's meal. Actual bread and wine not haired flesh and wine.

They are literally making jesus present by the Eucharist by literal communion and the only way they can benefit from literal communion is to eat at the same literal table with christ.

I assume the Passion isn't symbolic therefore neither is the lord's supper and Eucharist. It's confusing how catholics explain it, though. The use of "Is" people don't think about the context of what they are saying. It's contextual not symbolic.

You have made an illogical leap here. When Christ instituted the meal, and said "do this in remembrance of me", He and the Apostles were not eating His flesh, and drinking His blood.

He did not lose bodily mass, pieces of Him didn't fly off, He didn't start bleeding.

The key is REMEMBRANCE. Memories are not real. They are thoughts of what has occurred in the past, that were real then.

Symbolism is throughout Christianity.

Christ taught with parables, which are symbolic. He called Himself a door, a vine all symbolic of the truth.

Calling the bread and wine symbolic does not in any way take away from the literal fact of the passion.

When the communion meal was instituted, the passion had not yet occurred.

Communion is to focus on what occurred at a literal point in time. It is to eat a meal like Christ ate, and to focus on the sacrifice of body and blood He made as a substitute for us. The bread and wine represent this sacrifice.

To believe that Christ's body and blood is daily "sacrificed", means that when He said "it is finished", it wasn't, it just keeps happening perpetually.