Is communion symbolic or literal?

[APAK]

Did we square it away? I told you that your statement was not accurate. Are you agreeing with me??? :)

It would be lovely if you answered my questions instead of acting like they were never asked. That is how we have conversations: You contradicted yourself when you said "In a Catholic mass, I’ve never eaten any raised/ leavened bread,.." and then several sentences later you said, "The wafers were made of unleavened bread." Could you clarify your contradictory statement?

Curious Mary

Mary:
You apologized for your misunderstanding in you last post, remember! Are you now taking that back. I thought the apology meant a light bulb came on and you finally realizes that's what I always said and meant, wafers were of unleavened bread. Mary was more to you want? You cannot have it both ways. You had your answer so let's move on shall we.

Answer my questions for a change, from the last post of mine. Thank you.

If not, have a nice day.

APAK

 

[Helen]

It is a token of "remembrance" and therefore, symbolic...just as Jesus is not really a baby sheep, or an actual loaf of bread, nor the sun in the sky (the light of the world).

"All things come in parables."

Make sense?

Very true...but those who don't wish to hear it...just won't!

 

[Marymog]

Mary:
You apologized for your misunderstanding in you last post, remember! Are you now taking that back. I thought the apology meant a light bulb came on and you finally realizes that's what I always said and meant, wafers were of unleavened bread. Mary was more to you want? You cannot have it both ways. You had your answer so let's move on shall we.

Answer my questions for a change, from the last post of mine. Thank you.

If not, have a nice day.

APAK

HI Apak,

Here is the last question you asked me (in blue) and the answer I gave to that question (in red): Do you know what the Passover of the Lord means? Hint: it is the reason you should not do weekly communion that celebrates a pagan ritual of actually believing you are eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

At the Last Supper Jesus replaced the Jewish practice of eating lamb at the Passover to eating Him. He became the sacrificial lamb.
Your theory that we "should not do weekly communion" is not based on scripture. Scripture actually says they met DAILY to break bread and Jesus gave us the prayer that included the words "give us this day our DAILY bread". One of the first things Jesus did after the resurrection was break bread with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and their eyes were opened when He did this. Your eyes apak are still closed.

I completely destroyed your theory with facts from scripture and you have failed to defend your theory.

So I ask you once again: You said "In a Catholic mass, I’ve never eaten any raised/ leavened bread,.." and then several sentences later you said, "The wafers were made of unleavened bread." Could you clarify your contradictory statement?

Curious Mary

 

[APAK]

HI Apak,

Here is the last question you asked me (in blue) and the answer I gave to that question (in red): Do you know what the Passover of the Lord means? Hint: it is the reason you should not do weekly communion that celebrates a pagan ritual of actually believing you are eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

At the Last Supper Jesus replaced the Jewish practice of eating lamb at the Passover to eating Him. He became the sacrificial lamb.
Your theory that we "should not do weekly communion" is not based on scripture. Scripture actually says they met DAILY to break bread and Jesus gave us the prayer that included the words "give us this day our DAILY bread". One of the first things Jesus did after the resurrection was break bread with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and their eyes were opened when He did this. Your eyes apak are still closed.

I completely destroyed your theory with facts from scripture and you have failed to defend your theory.

So I ask you once again: You said "In a Catholic mass, I’ve never eaten any raised/ leavened bread,.." and then several sentences later you said, "The wafers were made of unleavened bread." Could you clarify your contradictory statement?

Curious Mary

Look Mary either you are really way out there in your own mind, or you have some type of mental handicap. Last time on this point......Raised bread means leavened bread, fluffy texture, cause by a raising agent. Flat bread or wafer host means unleavened bread, no leavening agent in it ...what is the contradiction in my words!? There is none. I had UNLEAVENED BREAD (WAFERS) not LEAVENED BREAD....No more on this point, please. I mean this, and go find some one else to assist you if yo do not comprehend. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH. You are becoming a very annoying and an unreasonable person. Why don't you tell me what is really on your mind. Did you see a misspelt word, a wrong thought or idea in my writing.... it is obvious you are trying to trap me into something that is not there.

And the other subject about the destruction of my so-called theory is nuts. I never said that folks did not continue to break bread as a reminder of Christ even after he was risen. And as you said Jesus did break bread with others. In fact he broke bread to identify himself to strangers. After Pentecost never- the-less, the breaking of bread as some sort of permanent ritual for the last supper never happened, as it was not necessary. The symbol of bread becoming Jesus was now embedded in the form of spirit of God in a believers heart. The pre-Catholic false teachers kept a pagan form of it going as a permanent ritual. And the rest is history as they say.

The expression of “the breaking of bread” occurs several times and 5 times in Acts. They do not reveal that it was done for a ritual regarding the last supper. Folks broke bread to actually prepare a meal. It meant to prepare a meal in general, regardless of using bread or not. The Israelites were doing this in their time. They praised God at times at the end of their preparation before eating as some do today at meals.

Look, just because I do not write the words you want to see, does not mean that what I wrote is the end all of it. Are you one of those simple-minded people? I hope not.

You combined you Catholic weekly communion event with those of the early apostles and followers as some type of proof that is should be done the Catholic way still today. You presume too much Mary. That is your theory.

APAK

 

[BreadOfLife]

KJ:

Communion according to the Catholics is the sharing of the actual body and blood of Jesus, in the form of a wafer and juice.
The priest administering communion of the body to its members also possesses the blood of Christ in the form of a non-alcoholic drink or juice, usually grape juice. He drinks it before the bread/wafer is administered.

The Catholics believe it is a literal communion of Christ. When the priest prays and cries out” this is by body,…. and this is my blood…”, then a process called transubstantiation takes place, which makes the wafer/bread and juice literally into the body of blood of Jesus. They also call this the sacrament of the mass or Holy Eucharist.

You see these early pagans had it all wrong. When they read a portion of scripture regarding ‘eating the body and drink the blood of Jesus,’ that was too hard for many followers to believe, and they fell away, they thought the literal eating of Jesus had to be somehow incorporated into their doctrine. They came up with this pagan ritual.

Some Protestants are not much better.

Many Protestants perform communion as a symbol of Christ’s body by giving out a miniature biscuit.

Now let’s look at the misapplied scripture:

(Joh 6:48) I am the bread of life.
(Joh 6:49) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
(Joh 6:51) I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
(Joh 6:52) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.blah, blah, blah . . .

APAK

In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:22-71), Iesus tells the crown to eat His flesh and drink His blood - or they have NO life within them.
MOST of the people who were present for this discourse turned and walked away from Jesus (John 6:66). Like YOU - they simply couldn't handle what He was telling them.

John doesn't use the normal word used for human eating (Phagon). He uses the word for the way an animal rips apart his food (Trogon) to drive home the point that Jesus meant what He said. After the people left, did Jesus explain Himself like He did so many times before?? NOPE.
He simply turned to the Twelve and asked them. "Do you also want to leave?"

At the Last Supper - Jesus showed His Apostles HOW to consume His flesh and drink His blood. This is very significant because they were eating the Passover Meal. At that meal, the Paschal lamb must be consumed (eaten) - just as OUR Paschal Lam must be consumed. Jesus gave the Apostles a Sacramental formula for doing this by transforming the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Jesus told them, "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood."
He didn't say, "This is a SYMBOL of My Body and Blood."

The Early Church was UNANIMOUS in their agreement on the Eucharist. In fact, we read from Josephus, Tacitus and other early historians that the Romans accused the early Christians of being "cannibals" because of their belief in the Eucharist.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
"Eat my flesh)" [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Hippolytus
"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. "This is the symbol of my blood," but, "This is my blood," for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

 

[Marymog]

Look Mary either you are really way out there in your own mind, or you have some type of mental handicap. Last time on this point......Raised bread means leavened bread, fluffy texture, cause by a raising agent. Flat bread or wafer host means unleavened bread, no leavening agent in it ...what is the contradiction in my words!? There is none. I had UNLEAVENED BREAD (WAFERS) not LEAVENED BREAD....No more on this point, please. I mean this, and go find some one else to assist you if yo do not comprehend. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH. You are becoming a very annoying and an unreasonable person. Why don't you tell me what is really on your mind. Did you see a misspelt word, a wrong thought or idea in my writing.... it is obvious you are trying to trap me into something that is not there.

And the other subject about the destruction of my so-called theory is nuts. I never said that folks did not continue to break bread as a reminder of Christ even after he was risen. And as you said Jesus did break bread with others. In fact he broke bread to identify himself to strangers. After Pentecost never- the-less, the breaking of bread as some sort of permanent ritual for the last supper never happened, as it was not necessary. The symbol of bread becoming Jesus was now embedded in the form of spirit of God in a believers heart. The pre-Catholic false teachers kept a pagan form of it going as a permanent ritual. And the rest is history as they say.

The expression of “the breaking of bread” occurs several times and 5 times in Acts. They do not reveal that it was done for a ritual regarding the last supper. Folks broke bread to actually prepare a meal. It meant to prepare a meal in general, regardless of using bread or not. The Israelites were doing this in their time. They praised God at times at the end of their preparation before eating as some do today at meals.

Look, just because I do not write the words you want to see, does not mean that what I wrote is the end all of it. Are you one of those simple-minded people? I hope not.

You combined you Catholic weekly communion event with those of the early apostles and followers as some type of proof that is should be done the Catholic way still today. You presume too much Mary. That is your theory.

APAK

That you for the Christian response. Accusing me of having a "mental handicap" and "annoying" because I don't accept what you preach or understand your way of writing. Now that you have written a complete and explanatory sentence....I understand you. Thank you. I sincerely did not understand what you were saying....Chill out...show more grace.

If you had leavened bread at a Catholic mass the priest violated canon law. If you knew it was supposed to be unleavened you should have told him or reported him to the Bishop.

It shouldn't been done that way still today?? Really??? The NT people who walked and talked and were taught by the Apostles got it wrong but you got it right??? Are you being serious????

Your theory that they did not do it daily is wrong and if you were to read scripture and Christian historical writings you would know this.

Mary

 

[APAK]

That you for the Christian response. Accusing me of having a "mental handicap" and "annoying" because I don't accept what you preach or understand your way of writing. Now that you have written a complete and explanatory sentence....I understand you. Thank you. I sincerely did not understand what you were saying....Chill out...show more grace.

If you had leavened bread at a Catholic mass the priest violated canon law. If you knew it was supposed to be unleavened you should have told him or reported him to the Bishop.

It shouldn't been done that way still today?? Really??? The NT people who walked and talked and were taught by the Apostles got it wrong but you got it right??? Are you being serious????

Your theory that they did not do it daily is wrong and if you were to read scripture and Christian historical writings you would know this.

Mary

OK Mary, I accept what you say as being sincere, and I will not then continue being heavy handed with you. Although you have now added something more I did not even say. I never said or intended in any way to say these Catholics used leavened bread...it was all unleavened and therefore did not violate any of the law, and this is the reason why had NO raised or leavened bread as I have been saying all along.

All good, I hope...

Thanks for clearing that up

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Marymog]

OK Mary, I accept what you say as being sincere, and I will not then continue being heavy handed with you. Although you have now added something more I did not even say. I never said or intended in any way to say these Catholics used leavened bread...it was all unleavened and therefore did not violate any of the law, and this is the reason why had NO raised or leavened bread as I have been saying all along.

All good, I hope...

Thanks for clearing that up

Bless you,

APAK

I owe you a public apology. After re-reading the post I now see where I made the mistake of misunderstanding what you were saying. I mixed up a few words you said and I apologize for that. You, in fact, did NOT make a contradictory statement.

All is good.

Love Mary

 

[APAK]

I owe you a public apology. After re-reading the post I now see where I made the mistake of misunderstanding what you were saying. I mixed up a few words you said and I apologize for that. You, in fact, did NOT make a contradictory statement.

All is good.

Love Mary

Mary thank you...I am really humbled now

APAK