Though you may not want to admit it, the interpretations you are sharing here reflect catholicism.Heavens to Betsy! Not KATH-lick!!!! :shock
Since modern churches can't agree on what to believe, I choose to base my belief and understanding on the universal teaching of the ancient church rather than the modern innovators with their "new and improved" winds of doctrine.
That's a good example of a modern innovation. The ancient church never taught that the bread and wine was a "symbol" of the body and blood. They all taught that it actually IS the Lord's body and blood. It wasn't until Zwingli, in the 16th century that a "symbolic" understanding of the Eucharist was seriously espoused.
See:
Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; “They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”
He was taught by the John, the beloved disciple of Christ and, in this statement, he affirms the teaching of the apostles and Christ that the bread is Christ’s body.
Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is not some later innovation by the Roman church but was a part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church.
And here it is:
“And this food is called among us Eujcaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”
Further early references:
IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (175-185 AD)
Book IV; Chapter XVIII.—Concerning Sacrifices and Oblations, and Those Who Truly Offer Them.
4…………..But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Chapter XXXIII.—Whosoever Confesses that One God is the Author of Both Testaments, and Diligently Reads the Scriptures in Company with the Presbyters of the Church, is a True Spiritual Disciple; And He Will Rightly Understand and Interpret All that the Prophets Have Declared Respecting Christ and the Liberty of the New Testament.
2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side? What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead?
I trust those who were the closest to the apostles over the multitude of discordant voices heard 2000 years later from those who assume they are more intelligent and have a better anointing from the Holy Spirit than the early church fathers and the members of the ecumenical counsels. Those include folks from John Calvin to Jim Jones and everyone in between. Since I doubt that I'm more qualified to interpret the Bible than the early church fathers and don't think I have my own private line into the Holy Spirit's office, I defer to them.
OOOOPS! Hope I didn't step on any toes!
That's just where I'm coming from.
Mazel tov!
iakov the fool
Putting that aside, I hope you will agree that we must use the bible to test what we know about the bible. The bible interprets itself, and that is where we are to base our doctrine, and only by studying passages within the context they were written.
There is nothing in the bible that even suggests that the wine and the bread are actually Christs blood and flesh.
