Regarding Holy Communion, how can one be guilty of a symbol?

Question

The Bible does say that if one eats and drinks unworthily then he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. But if you are only eating a symbol of his body and blood, then wouldn't you be guilty of a symbol? And how is that possible?

I mean..I know that Jesus literally and explicitly tells us in chapter 6 of John that it truly is his flesh and blood, but not everyone believes what Jesus said...

hmm, I don't remember the sixth chapter of John saying anything about eyeballs...let me check.........nope, don't see it.

(((((spiritroaming)))))) Excellent work!! You had your coffee today, eh? ;-)

lizardmama...actually, the Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture is not considered "individual interpretation." That would describe all interpretation outside of the Church, such as your own. We've been at it for 2,000 years now and this is nothing new to us.

CJ - While knowing to which verse you were referring, Matthew 5:29 has nothing to do with this question or topic. You are the one whose interpretations and answers make you look foolish.

The GMC - Perhaps actually reading the whole chapter before giving your commentary would behoove you.

Suzanne, maybe you didn't know that the New Testament was written in Greek. It's ok, we all learn new things everyday.

I've got three protestants who seem to think we are discussing the book of Matthew. Perhaps I didn't ask the question in simple enough terms?

Answer 1

"To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

All of the early church believed the same way we do today, including Martin Luther.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "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 to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Those who deny it would have us believe that from the time of Christ until Calvin and Zwingli came along, EVERYONE was wrong.

Horsehockey.



Raven - LOTS of coffee! :)



Sorry Suzanne - Jesus NEVER said this a symbol. He said "This is my body"

Answer 2

When someone receives Holy Communion they are suppose to immedietly consume the Host. It is wrong to defile the Body of Christ. I do not think if someone does this it is a matter of culture. I think it may be ignorance. They most likely are not Catholic. This is one of the reasons Catholics request Protestants not take Communion in our Church. They do not understand the sacrament. As far as taking the Host to someone else, there are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion that take the Host to homebound parishioners, those in nursing homes, etc. If the person is in the Church but unable to walk to receive, an usher usually points this person out to the priest and the priest goes to the handicapped person.

Answer 3

I'm wondering which Bible translation speaks of "dishonoring the Lord's table"? Is Christ's body a table now? Or a memory? I don't think even the KJV says that:

1 Cor. 11:27-29: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Edited to add: Consistency in interpretation seems to be lacking here ... which is precisely the point, isn't it? The mind boggles at the convolutions involved in freelance interpretation of Scripture.

Answer 4

You are quite correct in your reasoning.

This has been the constant understanding of the church from the beginning, because God was very serious about leaving us, his authentic church, with the definitive sacrifice of the new covenant, and the eternal fulfillment of the Jewish Passover, which is the real and substantial body and blood of his son Jesus, made truly present through the Mass, in the most blessed sacrament of the altar.

Never had Jesus ever prefaced a parable or a simile with a double "Amen" ... and on this matter, Jesus uses twin "Amens" several times:

Joh 6:47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6:52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Joh 6:57 (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

St. Paul knew the fact of the matter. So did all of the apostles. So does every Catholic.

But CJ is not totally wrong on this one.

According to their total lack of divine authority, Protestant communion REMAINS only crackers and grape juice ... while Holy communion in the Catholic church IS the real and substantial body, blood, soul, and divinity of the risen Jesus, alive and glorious ... just as Jesus, his authentic church, and all the scriptures confirm it to be.

But I don't recall Jesus mentioning the word "cannibalism" here ... do you?

There goes CJ ... attempting to alter the true meaning of the holy scriptures again.

Man's got to know his limitations!

Answer 5

The Communion wafer or bread is a SYMBOL of Christ's sacrifice, just as the flesh of the sacrifices eaten by the Levitical Priests was a symbol, etc. This is the way God speaks to us: via symbols. Trust me, if you studied the Bible from a Messianic Jewish perspective, you'd understand this. The problem is that the majority of Christians view the Bible from a Greek perspective, totally ignoring the fact that Jews view and interpret the Scriptures in an entirely different exegetical manner.

With regard to Father K's comments re: Ignatius, chapter VI makes it overwhelmingly obvious that the writer is referring to unbelievers, not Christians. (I love you anyway, Father K.)

EDIT: "maybe you don't know that the New Testament was written in Greek." Wow, thems huge words. Lemmie see if I can understand:

1) writings of the earliest church fathers DOCUMENT that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Looks like you didn't know this.

2) the New Testament was written by JEWS. Do you expect them to think like gentiles (Greeks) just because some of the Gospels and Epistles may have been originally written in Koine Greek? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Don't mess with me, whipper-snapper. I've read much more than you have.

SECOND EDIT: ((((((CMW))))))

Answer 6

Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his disciples, so the Jewish context is correct. This is the meaning of the verse, and please note that is never was bread. It was matzah. It's Passover for goodness sake. "B'rakhah" means blessing.

"Also, taking a piece of matzah, he made the b'rakhah, broke it, gave it to them and said, “This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in memory of me.”

Note the semicolon. So it says: (1) This is my body, which is being given for you, an event that will take place the following day. (2) Do this ritual that we're doing right now in memory of me.

Jesus never said that anyone would be eating his actual body at any time, much less 2000 years later.

Edit: Please take a look at the linked article, which discusses the Greek-ness of the NT. Then, if you're nice, you might apologize to Suzanne for being so snotty. :-)

Answer 7

A loaded question based on individual interpretation of scripture.

But let's take it back to the early church. Communion was originally a meal that was shared by the entire congregation. It would have included much more than simply bread and wine. We see this when Paul admonishes the church for the way they were conducting it. He says that some of higher social status and wealthier, were given priority in line. They would get for themselves the best of the meal and the choicest cuts of meat, and leave the dregs for the poor. In some cases, there was no food left for the last in line. It is a time for reflection and unity among God's people, and division of the Body into classes was never part of our practice of faith. Today, I am not aware of any congregation that still practices communion in this fashion. Regardless of your interpretation of whether it is the actual flesh and blood or simply symbolic, Jesus gave this to us at the Passover meal. That's a 2 hour sermon in itself, looking into the symbolism of the Passover meal, the Jewish traditions, what each of them meant, and how Jesus fulfilled each one. But when Paul writes about eating in an unworthy way, he is talking about something we do not even practice anymore. However, it would be fair to say that if we take communion only for the sake of being seen taking communion, without contemplating what it means, we would still be guilty today of taking it unworthily.

Answer 8

Regarding "being guilty of a symbol": Jesus simply said to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Him]" It was not a command. If you think that doing the Lord's Supper will save you, then you are wrong. However, being wrong with God and partaking wont send you to hell either. You may be considered as someone who is mocking the ritual and of that you would be guilty.

Regarding John 6:47-59: The advantage of the manna was small, it only referred to this life; but the living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ's human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also.

Answer 9

It is the condition of the heart. It also says that if you look after a woman with lust in your heart then you are already guilty of adultery. If you mock or partake of Holy Communion without knowing Christ, then you are just as guilty as those that stood by and screamed "Crucify Him!". Of course, we all are guilty in the death of Christ because we have all sinned. And if you don't believe what Jesus said, than what do you care if partaking of the Holy Communion unworthily makes you guilty? Wouldn't that be a moot point?

Answer 10

Of course. And the Body of Christ - the One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism....the Faith Once delivered unto the Saints...the Church of Scripture, the Church of Tradition...and the Church of God-given Holy Reason, has been in total agreement since the very beginning:

"They 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, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"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 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." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).