Lord's Supper - Metaphore only?

[stovebolts]

Hey Thess,
2 questions, and I don't want to pull this off topic, so if you think it will, then just pm me.

1. Does one have to view the bread and wine as flesh and blood to partake?
Simply put, I believe that it is what it is, and what IT is, is a mystery. When I view the fruit of the vine, I view it as the blood of the covenant. Blood was always poured out at the base of the alter. It was this blood that allowed communion with God.

But I don't fully believe that Christ came to serve the alter. True, he served AT the alter, but he no longer serves the alter. Thus, the cross grounds the table. Christ came to serve at the table, He is also the host of the eucharist as He dines with us in full communion. Agreed??

2. Does one have to be a baptised believer to partake in the sacraments?
I don't believe so. In Lukes account, Jesus sat with His apostles and clearly stated that His betrayer sat among them. Yet, they ALL partook in bread and the wine. Furthermore, Jesus was known to eat among sinners.

Anyway, I didn't want to go into great detail cause I don't want to derail this thread. Also, sorry for this being thrown together so quickly, man, it's been hectic yesterday and today.

Thanks

 

[thessalonian]

Hey Thess,
2 questions, and I don't want to pull this off topic, so if you think it will, then just pm me.

1. Does one have to view the bread and wine as flesh and blood to partake?
Simply put, I believe that it is what it is, and what IT is, is a mystery. When I view the fruit of the vine, I view it as the blood of the covenant. Blood was always poured out at the base of the alter. It was this blood that allowed communion with God.

But I don't fully believe that Christ came to serve the alter. True, he served AT the alter, but he no longer serves the alter. Thus, the cross grounds the table. Christ came to serve at the table, He is also the host of the eucharist as He dines with us in full communion. Agreed??

If you are going to partake of Communion in the Catholic Church it is understood that you are in "communion" with the Church. Not just on the Eucharist but on other matters as well. Not sure what you mean by the "serve the altar" thing. He is definitely the Hos, the high eternal preist in the order of Melchezidek. ("you are a preist forever in the line of melchezidek", Ps 109 I think).

2. Does one have to be a baptised believer to partake in the sacraments?
I don't believe so. In Lukes account, Jesus sat with His apostles and clearly stated that His betrayer sat among them. Yet, they ALL partook in bread and the wine. Furthermore, Jesus was known to eat among sinners.

Anyway, I didn't want to go into great detail cause I don't want to derail this thread. Also, sorry for this being thrown together so quickly, man, it's been hectic yesterday and today.

Well first of all I consider the last supper to be the first Eucharist. The other meals in the Gospels are not Eucharistic events in my mind. 1 cor 11 tells us that if someone partakes unworthily, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, i.e. it is a sacralidge. Therefore one in serious sin should not partake, it is clear. That does not prevent them from partaking and Judas most likely participated unworthily. I assume that the Apostles were baptized in the baptism of John and so yes I think you have to be baptized. That is Catholic teaching as well. Baptism makes you a member of the household of God at which you can participate in the Lamb's Supper.

Thx for the questions. They are good.

Blessings

 

[Vic C.]

Well first of all I consider the last supper to be the first Eucharist. The other meals in the Gospels are not Eucharistic events in my mind. 1 cor 11 tells us that if someone partakes unworthily, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, i.e. it is a sacralidge. Therefore one in serious sin should not partake, it is clear. That does not prevent them from partaking and Judas most likely participated unworthily. I assume that the Apostles were baptized in the baptism of John and so yes I think you have to be baptized. That is Catholic teaching as well. Baptism makes you a member of the household of God at which you can participate in the Lamb's Supper.

This is not that far off from what is expressed in our SBC church. Get right with the Lord before the Lord's supper; it is NOT to be taken lightly... and we stand on the same ground as far as the relationship between baptism and the Lords's supper; it should not be taken if one is not baptized.

 

[LittleNipper]

We present the LORD's Supper as a memorial and a time to reflect and examine. The saved (born again) Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian does not feed on the blood of CHRIST but GOD's Standard, HIS HOLY WORD the Bible.

So the flesh of Christ is in opposition to the Bible? Once again LN, you raise objections that show ignorance of Catholicism. We agree that metaphorically the word of God is something we can feed upon. That is why the first part of our Mass is called "The liturgy of the Word". This is not contradictory to the Litugy of the Eucharist. If you do not feed on the blood of Christ, Christ tells you you have no life within you.

[quote:3d435] He is already washed in the Blood of the LAMB and is being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT or Comforter. I'm Little Nipper because as the Victor Dog of the same name, I listen for MY MASTER's VOICE and endeavor to obey... My master speaks to me through HIS HOLY WORD rather then a new improved Berliner Gram-o-phone..... To face the OP head on might come across to you as being confrontational. I'm not out to win a debate or blacken your eye. I'm here to light a candle.and set it high on a candle stand were it maybe seen by all.

So I guess I am going to continue to get these milk like responses that come nowhere near convincing me of anything or being any kind of a light. You seem to think I lack faith in Christ. He is exactly where my COMPLETE faith is.

God bless[/quote:3d435]

My job as a Christian is to spread the Light of GOD's Gospel message. The HOLY SPIRIT does the convincing and the convicting. That is not my job. Do you believe that that FLOOD of NOAH day actually happened or is it merely metaphorical / allegorical in nature. Is the Biblical 6 day Creation story truth or fiction? I'm not trying to corner you. I'm only holding up a mirror. Any interpretation of scripture MUST reflect and be compatable with the rest of the Bible. And that understanding rests in the hands of the HOLY GHOST and HIS leading and not any church.

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Thess,
I believe the meat of 1 Cor 11 actually starts around 1 Cor 8 and travels into 1 Cor 12 if memory serves me well. Let me pass this by you.

As far as partaking in a worthy manner, I believe that the Corinthian’s were abusing their freedom in Christ and thus, gorging themselves at the sacrificial feasts of Zeus. (1 Corinthians 10:21) Though free in Christ, we are also bondservants and we must examine our service to the Lord.

I'll take it from your response that it's safe to turn the focus of this thread to another aspect?

To better explain what I meant by Alter. Would it be fair to say that the priests would often serve the Alter by presenting the atoning sacrifices? We know that blood was sacred because it was said to "hold the life". This is why it was not to be drunk correct? (Deuteronomy 12:23 Leviticus 17:11-14) To my understanding, this is also why it was able to atone for sins.

I can’t recall exactly where I got this from, but I had read somewhere that fat was a sign of abundance and thus, this is why certain portions of fat were dedicated to the Lord.

True, the blood did atone for the various sins, and this is important, but it should be noted what happened to the bulk of the blood. Simply put, it was poured at the base of the Alter (Leviticus 4:7). I believe this is significant. The fat and the portions dedicated to the lord were fully transformed through the fire to an aroma pleasing to the Lord. (Leviticus 4:31)

But what happened to the rest of the animal and what was the purpose of the whole ritual? For most of the sacrifices, it was eaten as a fellowship meal after the atonment. I believe that scripture is clear that all of this was so that Israel could commune (fellowship) with God (Exodus 20:24) as they enjoyed a meal together. The blood was the means, but the purpose was for the communal fellowship of Israel with God. (Exodus 20:24)

So, is it safe to say then that the blood of Christ was the means of atonement and sealed the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31, Luke 22:20) but the purpose was for fellowship with and in Christ (Exodus 20:24). Hence, Christ served the Alter when he went to the cross, but the Alter (cross) points to the table (communion) as truly, Christ serves at the table as host.

The Alter was a time of seriousness and mourning. Innocent life was being taken. The communal meal was a time of fellowship and joy. (Luke 24:52)

It is good to remember what Christ died on the cross (alter), but I do not believe that it should be the primary focal point of Communion because three days later, Christ was raised from the grave and as promised, he was made known to His disciples. (Luke 22:16 fulfilled in Luke 24:30-31). Furthermore, the Passover feast was a celebration.

Hope that clears that up.

 

[francisdesales]

It is good to remember what Christ died on the cross (alter), but I do not believe that it should be the primary focal point of Communion because three days later, Christ was raised from the grave and as promised, he was made known to His disciples. (Luke 22:16 fulfilled in Luke 24:30-31). Furthermore, the Passover feast was a celebration.

Much of what you said before makes sense and is pretty much what we as Catholics believe. However, your understanding is incomplete of what happens at the altar (during a Catholic Mass). It is THROUGH divine liturgy, the Mass, that we, in communion with Jesus Christ, offer sacrifice to the Father in heaven. Jesus Christ, living in eternity, continues to offer His one-time sacrifice to the Father. Since we are part of the Body of Christ, we are joined as a community to this one-time sacrifice offered for all eternity THROUGH Christ. It is HERE where we encounter our Lord and Savior and are given the power to go out into the world as Christians. Thus, the Mass is not just a memorial, a remembrance of what happened 2000 years ago. It is, so to speak, a lowering of heaven down to us, enabling us to offer our own sacrifices to the Father, joined with that one sacrifice of Calvary.

The Mass is the means by which we are joined to the Paschal Mystery - the death AND resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, the Mass is not just about the death, but also, the resurrection AND ascension. It is a foreshadowing of what will come fully to us, but what we experience partially even now, the Wedding Feast. This is why the Church stresses so much that we come to Mass and participate in what Christ has done.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Francisdesales, nice to meet and chat with you.

Much of what you said before makes sense and is pretty much what we as Catholics believe. .

It pleases me that we are in agreement.

However, your understanding is incomplete of what happens at the altar (during a Catholic Mass).

An approach that I am trying to currently implement would consist in speaking in the positive tense where possible. For example, since you and I have not met, it is hard for you to fully understand what I understand. I can be very long winded at times, so know that I am attempting to just skim over some basics.
"To further your understanding of what happens at the Alter in a Roman Catholic Mass…" would have been conducive for an enriching, edifying conversation.

It is THROUGH divine liturgy, the Mass, that we, in communion with Jesus Christ, offer sacrifice to the Father in heaven. .

I partially understand that the words ‘divine liturgy’ encompass the whole ritual in regard to the Eucharist and not just the portion that is a memorial in remberance. However, I am uncertain what you fully mean by ‘we offer sacrifice’. I understand that the Eucharist is a time for rededication (hence we can use the Passover meal as an example), but I am unsure on your didactics in regard to how you define sacrifice. The blood of Christ Jesus was the sacrifice that atoned for our sins and made communion with God possible through the new covenant.
I would also like to mention that Communion translates from the Greek word koinonia which is often translated as fellowship. One of my points in my previous post was that Christ is the host of the table because fellowship occurs at the table, not the Alter.

Jesus Christ, living in eternity, continues to offer His one-time sacrifice to the Father.

I struggle with the word you use; continues. (Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 10:7-13, emphasis on verse 10) From what I understand, Christ went to the Alter once. His blood was poured out once at the Alter for All, and because of this, he now joins us at the table in fellowship as He is made known to us through the breaking of bread. (Luke 24)
I have heard rumor that the RCC believes that Christ continues to shed his blood through the Divine Liturgy. I don’t believe this is entirely a true statement, so here is your chance to dispel that myth if you so choose. (Hebrews 10:12-13)

Since we are part of the Body of Christ, we are joined as a community to this one-time sacrifice offered for all eternity THROUGH Christ. It is HERE where we encounter our Lord and Savior and are given the power to go out into the world as Christians. Thus, the Mass is not just a memorial, a remembrance of what happened 2000 years ago. It is, so to speak, a lowering of heaven down to us.

Excellent!

, enabling us to offer our own sacrifices to the Father, joined with that one sacrifice of Calvary

What is the RCC teaching on this statement? What do you consider your sacrifice to the Father?

Thank you for you time. Know that I am not out to bite. After this, I would like to discuss who is able to partake at the Lord’s table, if permissible.

Jeff

 

[stovebolts]

and we stand on the same ground as far as the relationship between baptism and the Lords's supper; it should not be taken if one is not baptized.

Vic,
Can you give specific verses to Instantiate that claim? I used to have that same view until I asked myself who "we" were, to stake a Proprietary claim to fellowship with God.

But to give the benifit of the doubt, you use the words should not. What occurs when a non baptised believer partakes in the Eucharist? Does it become some how defiled? Does the church (any church, not Church) really have the authority to dictate who can partake and who can not?

To be short and to the point, there is case after case where Christ fellowshipped and broke bread with sinners. This should be viewed as a ministry and not only as a rite in my opinion.

 

[thessalonian]

To fellowship with sinners is certainly a part of the Christian mission. To accept invitations by them to dinner. To converse with them and draw them to Christ. These were not however, Eucharistic events.

 

[stovebolts]

But Thess, Didn't Christ fellowship with Sinners? True, the Eucharist holds a deep meaning for baptized believers, but does one need to fully understand this meaning to partake in the sacraments?

In contrast, does one have to understand baptism to be baptised? Such as baptism, it is the Lord's work and not of our own effort. Can we say that it is the sinner that is baptised by Christ and it is at the Table, where Christ serves as Host? If not, then why?

How then, are we to deny to others what Christ has to offer?

Please be nice, these are just some thoughts that I have.

Jeff

 

[francisdesales]

An approach that I am trying to currently implement would consist in speaking in the positive tense where possible. For example, since you and I have not met, it is hard for you to fully understand what I understand. I can be very long winded at times, so know that I am attempting to just skim over some basics.
"To further your understanding of what happens at the Alter in a Roman Catholic Mass…" would have been conducive for an enriching, edifying conversation.

I didn't mean anything negative by saying "your understanding is incomplete".

I am uncertain what you fully mean by ‘we offer sacrifice’. I understand that the Eucharist is a time for rededication (hence we can use the Passover meal as an example), but I am unsure on your didactics in regard to how you define sacrifice. The blood of Christ Jesus was the sacrifice that atoned for our sins and made communion with God possible through the new covenant.

The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ, since the Church IS His Body. Not only is the Eucharist the sacrifice offered by Christ, but we are united to this sacrifice, and it becomes the sacrifice of the Church, as well. Our lives, our praise, sufferings, prayers, and work are united with Christ and His total offering - acquiring a new value. A sacrifice is an offering given to God with an inner conviction of giving praise and thanksgiving to God.

I would also like to mention that Communion translates from the Greek word koinonia which is often translated as fellowship. One of my points in my previous post was that Christ is the host of the table because fellowship occurs at the table, not the Alter.

That is the OTHER teaching of the Church regarding what happens at the Mass. Not only is the Mass the sacramental sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered to the Father in eternity, but it is also the Paschal Banquet (the altar is a table in which the Church gathers around to receive its nourishment, the Bread of Life). This feast is wholly directed towards the intimate union of the faithful with Jesus Christ. To receive communion is to receive Jesus Christ Himself.

I struggle with the word you use; continues. (Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 10:7-13, emphasis on verse 10) From what I understand, Christ went to the Alter once.

In time, 2000 years ago, yes He did. However, as in the verses you mention, Christ intercedes in the present tense. His one-time sacrifice is perpetuated throughout all time, since Christ is ALSO a divine being who is not subject to time. His actions are in contact with ALL time.

I have heard rumor that the RCC believes that Christ continues to shed his blood through the Divine Liturgy. I don’t believe this is entirely a true statement, so here is your chance to dispel that myth if you so choose. (Hebrews 10:12-13)

You are correct. The Council of Trent says that following:

"Since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is containted and offered in an unbloody manner ...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory" (DS 1743)

The sacrifice of the Mass is the SAME sacrifice of Calvary, offered in an unbloody, sacramental manner. This sacrifice continues because the intent of the Priest (Jesus) remains the same and the offering is the same - His Body - although under a different appearance.

, enabling us to offer our own sacrifices to the Father, joined with that one sacrifice of Calvary

What is the RCC teaching on this statement? What do you consider your sacrifice to the Father?

As I touched on before, a sacrifice consists of two elements: An inner disposition and an external action. Without the former, my action becomes a "work" in the sense of a Pharisaical manner. Without the latter, my faith is incomplete and loveless. Thus, a sacrifice can be something as simple as stopping to say a short prayer before I eat. Because of my amalgamation in Christ, my action is meritorious, because it is Christ, abiding within me, that MAKES my action pleasing to the Father. My action ALONE is of no value. But in Christ, my sacrifice has meaning to Him.

Thank you for you time. Know that I am not out to bite. After this, I would like to discuss who is able to partake at the Lord’s table, if permissible.

Certainly. I particularly enjoy conversing with someone who is open to hearing what we believe, rather than trying to convince someone that we don't believe "x", despite their adamant pleas to the contrary.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Thank you for clarifying how you defined a sacrifice. That made since. Also, thank you for clearing up the other misnomer by explaining that Christ transcends time. That was very nice and makes perfect sense as well.

(the altar is a table in which the Church gathers around to receive its nourishment, the Bread of Life).

I see two distinct items here. The Alter is where atonement was made and carries a priestly duty; the table is where the Church gathers to fellowship in the covenantal offering. I don’t understand how you call the Alter a Table. I see the Alter as grounding, or rather serving the table.

If we look at how covenants were performed in the OT, the sacrifice was split in half and both parties walked between them as a reminder, and a visual of what would happen to the other if the covenant was broken. From there, the animal was consumed in celebration as an agreement had been made between the two parties. From that perspective, I'd like to look at Abram and God (Genesis 15:17) I find it to be God’s nature that He would singly pass through the sacrifice while not requiring Abram to pass, as it is God who saves, and not man. What is your take on this and how does that reflect in RCC dogma? (dogma, not being a derogatory word)

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for clarifying how you defined a sacrifice. That made since. Also, thank you for clearing up the other misnomer by explaining that Christ transcends time. That was very nice and makes perfect sense as well.

Glad to see I was able to clarify.

The Alter is where atonement was made and carries a priestly duty; the table is where the Church gathers to fellowship in the covenantal offering. I don’t understand how you call the Alter a Table. I see the Alter as grounding, or rather serving the table.

Both are happening at the Eucharistic Banquet. (which is WHY it is called a sacrifice and a meal). The Altar IS a table, physically speaking. I am not sure what you mean by "the altar serves the table".

If we look at how covenants were performed in the OT, the sacrifice was split in half and both parties walked between them as a reminder, and a visual of what would happen to the other if the covenant was broken. From there, the animal was consumed in celebration as an agreement had been made between the two parties. From that perspective, I'd like to look at Abram and God (Genesis 15:17) I find it to be God’s nature that He would singly pass through the sacrifice while not requiring Abram to pass, as it is God who saves, and not man. What is your take on this and how does that reflect in RCC dogma? (dogma, not being a derogatory word)

First, ALL sacrifices of the OT were not performed in the manner done by Abram in that first covenant sealed by a sacrifice. Clearly, there are spiritual meanings to the symbolism of walking between the two portions of the sacrifice. As to God not requiring Abram to pass through, what about the following:

"And I [God] will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf" Jer 34:18-19

I realize these are different writers who may have different intents, so your idea is not invalid. But I think that the burning lamp is indicative of God's own promise to not break the Covenant, not that God would make the only promise in the Covenant relationship. Both parties make promises - although not necessarily equal ones.

As to "God saves, not man", I totally agree, with the caveat that God does not save without man's cooperation and desire to be saved in the first place. Catholic doctrine clearly tells us that we are saved by God's gracious gift, not by any of our own works. It also tells us that man is expected to respond to this gift by God-guided repentance and God-guided faith working in love.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

A common arguement against the Eucharist is that Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically. He says I am the vine and yet we know he is not a vine. He said "I am the door" but yet he is not made of wood. He even says "I am the bread of life". No he is not bread either. I most definitely agree with that. When he says this he is in fact speaking metaphorically. Bread is a symbol of Christ for bread has been the primary food historically throughout history for mankind. The langauge of "I am the...." is metaphore. Up to this point I think we can agree.
But are we limited to one view of God. By this I mean that can the meaphore be the reality. In John's Gospel we see the baptism of Jesus and the Holy Spirit appears.

John.1
[32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.
Luke.3
[22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
Now doves have been developed in the metaphorical sense as symbols of peace and so that is the symbol that the Holy Spirit appears as. Was their a dove there? No, it was the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove. Yet I think there was physically (i.e.) bodily the Holy Spirit there, just as the man Jesus embodied the Son of God, Jesus. God can be in the physical.

Now the significance of this is that there are some passages that simply do not fit the metaphore with regard to the Lord's Supper. We are told that "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you". "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink". Quite clearly this is not the language of metaphore for never anywhere else does Jesus say "this door is truly me" or this "vine is truly me". This is not the language of metaphore but reality. That he used metaphoric language above it does not mean that he is speaking metaphorically here. Neither is there a contradiction in using the metaphore of bread and then speaking the reality of what looks like bread (the metaphore) really being him. "This is my body...this is my blood". Rememberence is not symolic either. Though the symbol of bread helps us to remember that he is in fact feeding us. Feeding our souls with his flesh that he says was to be given for the LIFE OF THE WORLD. In the Old Testament the blood of the animal was considered to contain the life of the animal. With regard to Christ when we recieve his flesh and his blood his life becomes a part of our lives. We become what we eat and are restored to his image and likeness.

Blessings

Sorry, but one cannot buy Jesus Christ at the grocery store. Bread doesn't replace jesus, Jesus replaces bread!**** edited by thessalonian ***:

***** This is not a forum for debates, stating suppositions about what Catholics believe, or anti-catholic posting. Moderator thessalonian****

 

[thessalonian]

Bread doesn't replace jesus, Jesus replaces bread!****

You have quite succinctly stated the doctrine of transubstantiation here. Thank you.

 

[Steve]

I believe in the Real Presence. Always have. Always will. Now, I am not going to 'define' everything like Rome, the Church of Legalism, always does. But, yes---I believe Christ is Sacramentally present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. I believe the Roman Eucharist is valid. So is the Orthodox. So is the Old Catholic. So is the Anglican. also the non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East.

As the Orthodox, I will not attempt to smack a label on how He is present. It is Our Lord's own Service, and is to be done constantly---not quarterly, not on the first Sunday of the month---but constantly, until He comes back.