Real Presence in the Eucharist

[12th Doctor]

This is certainly a big issue between different Christian groups.

To me this is a completely open and shut case.  I don't understand how, looking at all the evidence, someone could ever come to the conclusion that Jesus had intended this idea to be merely "symbolic" or the other one, which is my personal favorite, is that "whenever Jesus spoke of this, he intended the body and blood to be 'scripture'".

The facts are rather obvious on these points.  In John 6:35-71:

 36
    But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
    Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
    because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
    And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
    For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."
41
    The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven,"
42
    and they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
43
    Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
    No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
    It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
    Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
    Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
    I am the bread of life.
49
    Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
    this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
    I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
    The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
    Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
    Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
    For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
    Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
    Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
    This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
    These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
    20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
    Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
    What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
    It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
    But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
    And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
    As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
    Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
    Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
    We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
70
    Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?"
71
    He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

Jesus promises the Eucharist to his followers.  We are told from the start that there were those who found this a "difficult teaching".  Jesus told many parables.  When he was misunderstood, or speaking metaphorically, he would clarify by saying the the confused crowd "this is what I mean."  There is no clarification offered here.  Jesus makes no attempt to correct those who leave him over this matter.  And, according to the passage, this discourse happened several times.

Jesus does eventually clarify this for his followers... at the Last Supper.  I need not recount that for you.

What say you?

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

[12th Doctor]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

[JSojourner]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

[12th Doctor]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

I know that Luther believed in it, as do almost all Lutherans.  Every Church I can think of that is "directly descended" from Catholicism (Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) all believe it.  It's the Churches that came from them that do not.

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

[12th Doctor]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

Well, clearly it was still a metaphor of sorts.  He didn't want them to cannibalizes him right there.  What I am addressing is that he seems make it pretty clear that the Bread and Wine are Body and Blood.

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

Well, clearly it was still a metaphor of sorts.  He didn't want them to cannibalizes him right there.  What I am addressing is that he seems make it pretty clear that the Bread and Wine are Body and Blood.

But not really, symbolically.

(Devil's Advocate, I'm vomiting at my own argument)

[JSojourner]

There's Transubstantiation and Consubstatiation.  I would argue that both imply the literal Presence.  In the Episcopal Church, when asked if we believe in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, we generally reply, "Yes."

My wife, however, simply affirms the elements as holy, sacred and God-ordained.  But purely symbolic.  Like me, she was raised pretty much in a fundamentalist Protestant tradition.  And she can't quite wrap her mind around some things in Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy.

She is always free and welcome to receive the host at our Episcopal services.  She would not be at a Catholic, Orthodox or Missouri Synod communion service.  Of the Lutherans, only the ELCA folks have open communion. 

As an aside, I visited my niece's church awhile ago.  Big mega church -- Evangelical, non-denominational, semi-Charismatic, in Central Ohio.  Pastor says from the pulpit, "if any of you want communion today, feel free to grab some out in the lobby.  We have some booths set up right by the coffee and doughnuts."

I kid you not.

[J. J.]

As an aside, I visited my niece's church awhile ago.  Big mega church -- Evangelical, non-denominational, semi-Charismatic, in Central Ohio.  Pastor says from the pulpit, "if any of you want communion today, feel free to grab some out in the lobby.  We have some booths set up right by the coffee and doughnuts."

I kid you not.

The Eighth Sacrament is sometimes referred to as "coffee afterwards." 

[12th Doctor]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

Well, clearly it was still a metaphor of sorts.  He didn't want them to cannibalizes him right there.  What I am addressing is that he seems make it pretty clear that the Bread and Wine are Body and Blood.

But not really, symbolically.

(Devil's Advocate, I'm vomiting at my own argument)

No, because when we take this farther, into 1 Cor 11:14-21

 14
    7 Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry.
15
    I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.
16
    The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
    Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
18
    Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?
19
    So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything?
20
    No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, 8 not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.
21
    You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.

Paul clearly states that the Eucharist is participation in Christ's body and blood.  And to go further, for those who think of the Eucharist as "idolatry" as many do, he makes this comparison while condemning idolatry.  The clear idea here is that the only true "sacrifice" is the sacrifice of Christ, which we celebrate through the Eucharist.

This was also clearly held with a high level of importance, for Paul later tells us in Cor 11:23-29 that those who are not worthy at the moment should abstain:

 23
    11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
    and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
    In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
    For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
    Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
    A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
    For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

What is one of the first things that John tells us about Jesus?  That he was the "Lamb of God."
 (John 1:29).  Paul goes farther to call Jesus the "paschal lamb who has been sacraficed (1 Cor 5:7).  Well, one thing that we know about the paschal lamb from the OT is that it must be eaten after the sacrifice.

But, the finally nail in a coffin, I feel has to do with the language of the Bible itself.  Other times in the Bible (Ps14:4, Is9:18-20 and even in John's own Revelation 17:6,16) when there is talk over eating someone's flesh or drinking their blood in symbolic terms, it is always meant to imply assault.  Jesus clearly did not want us to assault him.

There are also various words of Church Fathers I could delve into, but I will stay with that.

[bullmoose88]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

I know that Luther believed in it, as do almost all Lutherans.  Every Church I can think of that is "directly descended" from Catholicism (Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) all believe it.  It's the Churches that came from them that do not.

Which Lutherans do not believe it?

[12th Doctor]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

I know that Luther believed in it, as do almost all Lutherans.  Every Church I can think of that is "directly descended" from Catholicism (Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) all believe it.  It's the Churches that came from them that do not.

Which Lutherans do not believe it?

As with all Protestant groups, there are a few splinter groups who call themselves "Lutheran" who don't.

[bullmoose88]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

I know that Luther believed in it, as do almost all Lutherans.  Every Church I can think of that is "directly descended" from Catholicism (Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) all believe it.  It's the Churches that came from them that do not.

Which Lutherans do not believe it?

As with all Protestant groups, there are a few splinter groups who call themselves "Lutheran" who don't.

As I understood it, I'm LCMS, Lutherans believe that christ is present in communion, but (and this seemed to be confirmed in catholic high school...perhaps my educators didn't know what they were talking about) there's a slight difference between us and the RCC...don't you guys believe that the bread and wine, briefly (if for an extremely small moment) become flesh and blood...I don't really seeing there being a functional difference...Christ is present either way...

[J. J.]

1 Cor 11:14-21
17
    Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Quite clearly, Paul is using an analogy.  I think puts the rest into that context as well.  Much like my "It's Zogby" comments, I could say here, "It's Paul," not one of the Apostles nor Christ.

   
**********
 23
    11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
    and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
    In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
    For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

*****

You proclaim[/b] his death, again symbolic.



29
    For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

"Discerning the body" how?  Do so as a "remembrance,"  is symbolic.  (Devil's Advocate)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ was not a lamb!  Christ did not transform into an animal!  The only to read this literally is to argue that he did.  This one is clearly symbolic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The very same book refers to being washed in the blood of the lamb and being white afterward.  That is clearly symbolic.  (Actually not playing Devil's Advocate on these two points.  They are intended to be symbolic.)

[12th Doctor]

Martin Luther to Ulrich Zwingli...

"I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the Swiss."

I know that Luther believed in it, as do almost all Lutherans.  Every Church I can think of that is "directly descended" from Catholicism (Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran) all believe it.  It's the Churches that came from them that do not.

Which Lutherans do not believe it?

As with all Protestant groups, there are a few splinter groups who call themselves "Lutheran" who don't.

As I understood it, I'm LCMS, Lutherans believe that christ is present in communion, but (and this seemed to be confirmed in catholic high school...perhaps my educators didn't know what they were talking about) there's a slight difference between us and the RCC...don't you guys believe that the bread and wine, briefly (if for an extremely small moment) become flesh and blood...I don't really seeing there being a functional difference...Christ is present either way...

Catholics believe that once the bread and wine become the body and blood they stay that way forever.  Lutherans believe that it transforms back, and also that one cannot clearly define the moments at which it becomes body and blood and when it changes back.

[12th Doctor]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

[J. J.]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

You better be careful, as you just claimed Jesus was a sheep. 

(I wonder how much Devil's Advocates can make.  Possibly more than a Grand Inquisitioner?)

[bullmoose88]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

(I wonder how much Devil's Advocates can make.  Possibly more than a Grand Inquisitioner?)

Depends on a few factors
1) Firm Size
2) City
3) Area of Practice
4a) For those just out of school, institution and class rank OR
4b) Personal practice record

[J. J.]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

(I wonder how much Devil's Advocates can make.  Possibly more than a Grand Inquisitor?)

Depends on a few factors
1) Firm Size - France
2) City N/A
3) Area of Practice very technical theological points
4a) For those just out of school, institution and class rank OR
4b) Personal practice record Actually very detailed 

[GeorgianGurl]

can we have a "delete account" button please?