Test Question...What say you?

[Byblos]

Thank you Bart, Silvertusk for the kind words. Anyone who knows me here knows that my being Catholic is secondary to my Christianity on this board and has nothing to do with my participation here. I may from time to time engage in discussions or try to answer questions if asked, only in an effort to set the record straight so-to-speak or to dispel any misconceptions about my faith. The Lord's Supper is always a topic of controversy but of course we always have to remind ourselves that it's not an issue of salvation and JohnT is right, one of these days we'll be standing with Christ face to face and oh boy! is it going to be an eye opener for all of us.

Bart, I disagree with nothing you said. One thing I would like to clarify, though, (see, here I go again) is that from a Catholic perspective we see nothing metaphorical about Christ instituting the Eucharist. Yes, Jesus did speak in metaphors in many instances as he also taught using parables. In most cases, however, he would turn around and explain what he meant to his disciples or at least to the apostles themselves. The question is did he do that in this instance as well? Our reading says no and a very good case can be built from scripture as to why a literal reading is warranted as Scott Hahn does in the link above. Unless questions arise, I will leave it at that.

In Christ,

John

[Canuckster1127]

I see nothing metaphorical about the institution of the Eucharist either.

It's clearly an instituted sacrament of the Church.

What I see as metaphorical is the application of the language to the equating of the communion elements. I don't see them being changed in a ceremony performed by a priest to take on anything other than a symbolic representation of the body and blood of Christ. I understand the tradition of the Catholic Church in that regard. I understand the historical context and the general literacy and education of most communicants prior to the reformation being simplified to where such an understanding could develop. I don't find it scriptural on its own merits.

I don't find it a sufficient reason to do anything more however than to point out respectfully that that is my opinion and I respect that there are people whom I likely will spend eternity with who presently believe otherwise. I'm fully open to Christ showing me otherwise at any point.

[FFC]

I for one am glad Byblos is here and raising and dealing with these issues and I appreciate him.

Me too

Me three!

[Christian2]

12. What is the correct belief concerning the Lord's Supper/communion/the Eucharist?

The bread and wine are actually changed in substance to Christ's body and blood, so that they are no more bread and wine in essence, but exclusively the body and blood of our Lord.

The bread and wine are changed so that they become one in substance with Christ's body and blood, that their essence is changed into the body and blood without losing their natural properties.

The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, but by partaking them, faithful believers receive Christ's physical body and blood through the power of the Spirit.

The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, and are not means of grace, but are simply a sign of what they represent and a memorial of Christ's sacrifice.

Not sure

This one:

The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, and are not means of grace, but are simply a sign of what they represent and a memorial of Christ's sacrifice.

[jimbrown1124]

The fourth one. It depends on what denomination you are a lot of times, but Biblically it is just a memorial/identification of/with Christ.

[joecap]

I know this thread is pretty old, and there have not been any recent posts in it.
Perhaps it will still be read.

Being a Catholic myself, I believe that the Eucharist is, in fact the true Body of Christ.
If there is any confusion about his meaning, and whether to take it literally, recall in
John 6:53:

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

I think if they were that confused, and it was not meant to be taken literally, do you not think that Jesus would have quickly corrected them if they were mistaken?
Especially since many of his disciples left him after that statement?

Rather, he re-stated it using a verb that means literally "to chew".

There have been many miracles where the bread and wine have visibly been transformed into flesh and blood, specifically Lanciano... http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html