The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

I will not see many Catholics in heaven, faith in the church saves no one

I do not see any ignoring of scripture in true presence - in fact, it is fully in harmony with scripture. Our Blessed Lord on this occasion in John 6 specifically is given an opening to clarify - to state that what he meant was NOT literal, but a symbol. He was asked twice, as no one could believe what he said. But he declined. Not only is it clear as day, the aftereffect is self-evident - most of the disciples left him, except the Apostles (where are we to go Lord). This is important as when speaking in symbolism no one left Him, unlike here. Moreover, we know from 100 A.D. all Christians believed in the true presence. For example, St Ignatius of Antioch stated concerning heterodox: “because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” Of course St Ignatius studied under Polycarp, who was instructed at the foot of St John, who stood at the foot of the cross. But what does he know?

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

I wish you had let me know that you were going to post this. I wrote it several years ago and have wanted to edit and improve it for a long time, including adding a summary intro, but never go to it when i had the energy.

There is no Roman Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist. There is a sacrament of the Eucharist as propounded by The Catholic Church. The various rites within the Catholic Church (Roman, Byzantine, Coptic etc.) do not have distinct understandings of the nature of the Eucharist.

You are correct that Catholic would suffice. But Roman Catholic is used in distinction to the (Eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church as the former is what provides the more precise definition and documentation used.

That is false. Once a person truly accepts Jesus, that person will not want to go against His teachings. Sure, people make mistakes because no one is perfect.

Then ya better clean up your own house, mama.

So you can read minds. How do you know what I am like?

I read your Catholic-baiting posts, that’s how.

This is the problem of analyzing a text with only the text as reference. You are left solely with the authority of the text as a Rosetta Stone for itself. Catholic and Orthodox praxes did not create themselves by misinterpretation of the text. Rather the text’s meaning was manifested through the praxes of a church created by those who lived the text.

Which does not go far enough. Would not your ultimate argument be that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the infallible authorities on what it is and means, and thus are to be submitted to?

It’s funny that Biblical literalists, who will confess in the blink of an eye that God has feathers or that reading Harry Potter is practicing sorcery can ignore Christ’s simple declarative sentences about Peter and the Eucharist.

Your strawman makes you look like a novice, as you are not dealing with Mormons here, nor do we ignore what the Lord said about Peter and the Eucharist. Instead, it is RCs who ignore/dismiss the fact that what the Lord said about both simply does not translate into the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning in Rome, over a church with a separate class of believers distinctively titled “priests,” offering up transubstantiated flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sins, to be literally consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life, around which sacrament all else revolved.

For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers ” concur with.)

Nor does the Holy Spirit record or teach any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

Nor did the Holy Spirit ever call or distinctively title any NT pastors "priests," versus presbuteros/episkopos (same office). And who are never shown engaging in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread, as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

Nor is the church manifested as holding the the Lord's supper as the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

And as sound Biblical exegesis examines context and literary genres, and compares Scripture with Scripture, in so doing it is manifest that the metaphorical view of the Lord's supper is the only one which is consistent with the rest of Scripture. While the unequivocal imperatives of Jn. 6:53,54 would also force the RC to disallow salvation to all who reject the Cath. view of the Lord's Supper, if they were consistent. But it is the RC who is inconsistent in insisting on a semi-literal view of Jn. 6:22-ff.

For first of all, nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which manner of eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. . And thus it must exclude all who deny the literalistic interpretation of this section of Jn. 6, thus Vatican Two affirms baptized Prots as children of God and brethren of RCs.

Secondly, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths must also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Moreover, nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) For His words are spirit, and life. (Jm. 6:63)

Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,

speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

And I’m pretty dingdang tired of the divisive threads like this one that get posted over and over and over again lately.

So the fact that the RCs post articles over and over again about a church that they promote, and see you as a rebel against, and effectively exclude you from Heaven until you agree with Catholicism, does not call for a challenging response?

Thanks. You’re so right.

>>and thus are to be submitted to?<<

The Catholic Church requires submission of "intellect and will" as I've shown in previous posts.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

For as often.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

For as often.

A divisive thread is a divisive thread, whether it’s posted by a Catholic or a Protestant. I am confident that the church has no say whatsoever as to whether I am excluded from heaven or not. So they can say it all they want. It won’t matter a bit whether I post a challenge response, they will believe what they want. I will not waste my time or energy. Like I said, there are bigger fish to fry.

This is important as when speaking in symbolism no one left Him, unlike here. Moreover, we know from 100 A.D. all Christians believed in the true presence.

Do you also believe that Mary is the co-redemptrix? How about the Easter Bunny?

You can easily deny the Gospel with ignorance.

But Roman Catholic is used in distinction to the (Eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church as the former is what provides the more precise definition and documentation used.

Can you please provide a link to the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church to which you refer? Or to the Wikipedia page for the same? Thanks

>> “This is my body...this is my blood...” Well obviously he meant something else...despite those at the time took it literally...we just know better now...<<

Well the literal events were the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. If we logically take your example then yes Jonah was in the belly of a fish. That happened. Christ was crucified, died and rose again three days later.

If the consuming of Christ’s body and blood is the event in which atones for our sins, then the crucifixion did not have to happen.