What contributions have Catholics made...

er...um... and we know that they are not BOTH metaphors from "what" source??

 

so then.. the faithFUL disciples that did NOT leave - but rather OBEYEd Christ - ATE HIM that day -- and the gospel ends in John 6???

Notice Christ does not say in John 6 "someday in the future my flesh will become bread" or "my flesh will become real food".

So if the RC idea of REAL food in John 6 is to be used - then everyone of the RC faithful who remained should have been going in with knives and forks "to get eternal life".

Christ made no reference in the John 6 speech of the form "My flesh is NOT really food yet - but someday in the future it will be ... so don't come over here and bite me!"

 

Yet when he said this, he was still alive. Yes, he is real food and drink because he is the bread of life. Jesus uses numerous metaphors about satisfying hunger and thirst - but it is through belief in Him. We are satisfied in Christ through our faith.

The disciples left not because of this - and I went through all this before on several threads here -- but because of his claim that one must believe in him.

 

So forsake your belief in transubstantiation and believe what you just stated and what all Baptists and others believe. The bread is but a symbol of the Lord's body. Lori that is what we have been teaching, what the Apostle's taught, what Christ taught, what believers have believed all throughout centuries. It is symbolic, just as you have admitted. I am glad that we have finally agreed.

 

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. The liturgies in no way gave the impression that the faithful were just consuming symbols of the Lords body and blood. Show me where the apostles taught that the bread and wine were only symbols. St. Paul certainly didn't give any such impression when addressing the Corinthians. The ECF's certainly had no such notion.

Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans which makes up the vast majority of Christianity teach that the consecrated bread and wine is not a symbol.

Read what Vincent Arong observes:

"Since the Last Supper is both sacrificial and signifies the Cross, the essence of Christ's Paschal banquet truly makes present the reality of is entire sacrifice, which Christ consummated the next day through his death at Calvary. The reality of Christ's offering was expressed on the Cross through sacrificial death, while the instrument that makes the same sacrifice present at Mass is through a deathless act: the separate consecration of bread and wine. That is why Paul could write,

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

However, since Christ has eternally vanquished death, he can no longer suffer and die as he did on the Cross. Therefore the sign of the separate consecrations recall the means of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary -- which was death -- yet, at the same time, makes present the essential reality of that very same sacrifice-- which is himself. On the other hand, since the separate consecrations refer to the death of Christ, the sign-reality connection that exists between the Mass and Calvary is maintained. This leads to a profound implication: since the Mass makes present Christ's sacrifice, that would mean that the priest and the offering are synonymous and identical at both the Mass and at Calvary: Jesus Christ. Therefore, not only do the signs of bread and wine make present the reality of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, but they also make present the very reality of the body and blood of Jesus Christ himself. The union that exists between the Mass and the death of Christ is not just in the event of the sacrifice but also in Him who is given in sacrifice, namely, Jesus Christ.

'Unequivocally, the sacrificial identity between the Cross and the Last Supper shows that in the Eucharist, Jesus is truly present -- body and blood, soul and divinity. In conclusion, the Mass makes present to the Church the very same sacrifice that Jesus Christ offered on the Cross two thousand years ago. The People of God, through the Mass, are given the gift that transcends time and space to worship He who Is in Spirit and in Truth through faith. This gift is the exact same reality that witnessed Christ's sacrifice of his life to the Father for his beloved at Calvary. Thus, the Mass and the offering of Christ on the Cross are one single sacrifice, which Jesus committed “once for all, when he offered himself” (Hebrews 7:27).

Of course, after reading this there will no doubt be further accusations that Catholic (both Roman and Orthodox) re-sacrifice Christ at every Eucharist.
The Church DOES NOT TEACH THIS. If you need to re-read what Vincent so clearly states about Catholic teaching.

 

This how my RCIA teacher put it:

The difficulty of accepting a "figurative" interpretation of Jesus' words confirms the Catholic teaching. It is sometimes argued that since Jesus also said "I am the door" and "I am the vine" etc. then John 6:51ff could be taken metaphorically. The problem is that although Jesus is LIKE a door and LIKE a vine, etc. in no way is BREAD like His FLESH (v. 51 "...the BREAD which I shall give...is My FLESH...). By its nature "bread" cannot symbolize the BODY of Christ and the words of institution "This is My body...This is My blood" therefore have no logical parallel to Christ being the door, vine, light, rock, etc.

To further confirm the Catholic teaching, the words "EAT MY FLESH" and "DRINK MY BLOOD" used metaphorically or symbolically by the Jews means to slander, revile, hate, persecute, murder, or destroy a person. The proof is found from the Old Testament examples of the phrases (see Deut 28:53ff; 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20; 49:26; Ezek 5:10ff; Bar 2:3; Micah 3:3; also Rev 17:6,16). So taken as a Jewish metaphor or symbol, Jesus is apparently commanding his disciples to slander, revile, murder or destroy Him for eternal life -- which of course makes no sense of the passage.

 

First, you ought to know I don't refer to the ECF's. They contradict each other and some of them were even heretics. The Word of God is my authority and that alone.

Second, from the Word of God we'll use your standard: "literal" and "supernatural," and see how they apply, that is, if the verse is to be taken symbolic or literally.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
--Literal and supernatural? Or is it symbolic?
Is Jesus standing before something like a rectangular piece of wood with a door knob on it, or some other similar "door" that almost anyone can open and shut--a literal door. Is it a literal door that one can knock on, that makes a noise when one does so?
--Is the voice an audible voice?
--Can you describe the place the he enters in once the door is "opened"?
If literal where, how and when do you sit and sup with Jesus. This is not a future event. This is a present event. This verse was written to the church at Laodicea, and in as much as it applied to the members of that church, it applies to us as well.

Or is this verse symbolic. Is the door, the door to the heart. Is the person knocking, the Lord Jesus Christ? Does he want the person to open up his heart/life to Him in obedience that they might have fellowship one with another (sup with each other). This is symbolic, not literal. Isn't it obvious.

It is obvious that when Jesus said: "I am the door" that it was symbolic, not literal.

Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--It is obvious that this is symbolic and not literal.
When I take my driver's license out of my pocket and show it to my daughter, I may say: "Look this is me; do you want to give me a kiss?" What do you think?
First, it is not "me" that is on the driver's license. It is my representation, an image of me. I am the one holding it.
Second, even my small daughter would not be so foolish and naive as to confuse an image of me, with the real me, and she would be happy to give me and not a representation of me, a kiss. There is no way that she would give my driver's license (which sits in my wallet in my back pocket all day) a kiss!! It seems like she is smarter than the whole of the RCC.

Jesus held out bread and wine. This is my body and blood. In the most simple of terms he was saying this is a representation of me.
If he wasn't saying that, then the only other option is cannibalism. Not one of the Apostles reacted to a command which was directly contrary to Jewish law--the eating of human flesh, and Jesus would never give such a command. What they ate did not taste like flesh nor like blood; and it still doesn't today. And if it doesn't then don't say that it has been changed, for it hasn't been changed. You believe a lie. They are symbolic and that is all.

 

I am reading a wee book called "Catholic Life" and in it's list of don'ts is ar valid one for these sorts of threads..

1. Don't dispute on religious matters unless you are well instructed in the subject, and hope to do good.

2. Don't argue with one who is not sincerely seeking the truth.

I am also reading a fantastic book on the "Last Gospel" by Francis J. Ripley.
I love the text that ends the Mass which is John 1: 1-14. It has endless opportunites to meditate....:godisgood:

 

Er...no - I think you misread her there. The early liturgies were Realist (ie: strongly stressing the Eucharistic Real Presence) rather than Memorialist-symbolic in nature, hence why the early Church was accused of cannibalism by its detractors. Believer have believed that throughout the centuries, not the man-made Zwingliist view you espouse. You're on the wrong horse on this one.

 

In Deut 8 Moses said that the BREAD that came from heaven is a symbol illustrating the fact that "Man does not live by bread alone - but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

1. The Bible already gave the metaphor of BREAD for the Word of God long before the days of Christ.

2. In John 6 Jesus said HE is "the BREAD that came down from heaven" - thus referencing that very Deut 8 illustration and then in that same discusion saying "FLESH is worhless it is my WORDs that are spirit and are LIFE".

Thus the point was impossible to miss for the faithFUL disciples who respond to Christ "yes you have the WORDS of life" in that very chapter.

3. John begins his entire gospel showing the SAME point "the WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us".

And so in John 1 and John 6 we see DIRECT evidence that FLESH, WORD and BREAD are all linked metaphorically. And we see that it is a direct reference back to the Deut 8 scripture highlighting the same point.

So when the RCIA teacher argues that such is not the case - while not even mentioning this key detail in the Gospel of John where Jesus is most explicitly arguing that He is the LIVING bread that came down from heaven -- (a day when not one single faithful disciple bites Christ by the way) -- then that teacher's explanation is falling short of the bible evidence that speaks to this subject.

The metaphors of door and of vine do not have as strong an explicit connection in the gospels as WORD and FLESH.

We see this again in Matt 16 in the negative sense where the BREAD referenced is the WORD of the Pharisees.

Hmm ... and we know that is true... "how"??

Since Christ said "I AM the living bread that CAME down out of heaven" (past tense - not future tense) it is an obvious metaphor - impossible to ignore.

I AM the door, I AM the vine, this IS My body - they are all incredibly obvious metaphors because the listener SAW Christ NOt being a literal door, SAW Christ NOT being a literal vine, and SAW at the last Supper that Christ had not yet been sacrificed much less appearing to be bread.

Furthermore Christ does not hold out his arm at the last supper and say "THIS is food indeed" nor even "TAKE EAT". NOR does Christ slice off a finger and turn it into bread and pass it around. Thus there is NO literal application at all at the last supper since Christ was in bodily form right there in front of them. What is more apparent - is that the John 6 lesson on "bread is WORD" and the Deut 8 lesson that was taught in John 6 is being "recalled" at the Last Supper.

Thus at the lat supper - once again - nobody bites Christ.

There is a negative connotation just as we see in Matt 16 the use of bread for the TEACHING of the Pharisees.

But there is also the positive connotation for eating the WORD as though it were bread.

In Deut 8 Moses explicitly references the manna (bread) that fell from heaven and then adds..


Deu 8:3 “Man does not live by bread alone – but by Every Word that comes from the mouth of God”.[/b]

His teaching, His Word is set as “the key” to life. This is“already true” at the time He is speaking.

Ezek 3 – eating the WORD of God - does not have negative connotation

3:1 Then He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.”
2 So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll.
3 He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.
4 Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them.

 

I was being funny because this is exactly what the romans accused the christians of doing. Given that it makes you wonder at what doctrinally the Christians were saying. Body and Blood. Romans with no consept of Christ would believe Christians were involved in Cannabalism. Also "greet each other with a brotherly kiss" christians calling themselves "brothers"; "sisters" were kissing each other. Romans unfamiliar with Christian "speach" thought they were involved in incest.