The early Church was sacramental.

[Scotth1960]

"The early Church was sacramental. She confessed with one voice the sacraments (or "mysteries" as they were usually called) as reality, and she practiced them. God gave grace to His people in them. Baptism really is for the remission of sins and the giving of the Holy Spirit, exactly as the Apostle Peter had promised his listeners on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). The Eucharistic gifts really are the body and blood of Christ as the Lord Himself assured His disciples before His death (Luke 22:19-20)". [Gillquist, Peter E. (1992). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Revised and Expanded Edition. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press; page 45.].

 

[Dominion]

crazy cathy

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe that Jesus was being symbolic with the wine and bread about His body.

 

[Scotth1960]

crazy cathy

Wrong. "crazy cathy" isn't in the Bible. Your response is noted and rejected.
Your response is illogical.

 

[Scotth1960]

I believe that Jesus was being symbolic with the wine and bread about His body.

So, you are saying, with President William Jefferson Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of "IS" is."
So, Christ was not telling the truth when He said, "This IS my body; This IS my blood."
IS isn't a symbolic word. He was telling the truth, doubt Him if you will. It's your mistake.

 

[Dominion]

He also said that John the Baptist WAS Elias who was to come, and yet...

 

[Scotth1960]

He also said that John the Baptist WAS Elias who was to come, and yet...

That doesn't prove the bread and the wine aren't Christ's body and blood. They do become that after the priest prays the prayer of epiclesis to the Holy Spirit.
It's sad when people doubt the words of Jesus Christ, Who is, after all, God manifest in the flesh.

 

[Dominion]

Well then you go have yourself a good cry, it's sooooooo sad. It's not Jesus I doubt, it's you.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe it "is" the body and blood of Jesus, symbolicly. I don't read in the Bible where someone prays for the bread and wine and it changes. That's a false doctrine of the Catholic Church, which is not taught in the Bible.

 

[Scotth1960]

Well then you go have yourself a good cry, it's sooooooo sad. It's not Jesus I doubt, it's you.

Why don't you believe Jesus when He said "is"? Where does it say "symbolic"? If you profess to go by the Bible alone, do a search in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Version Bible. If Jesus Christ meant when He said "This IS my body", that this is "symbolic of my body", why doesn't the Bible say "symbolic". You claim to know show much. Prove to us all that it's symbolic. By what authority do you say it's symbolic?

 

[Scotth1960]

I believe it "is" the body and blood of Jesus, symbolicly. I don't read in the Bible where someone prays for the bread and wine and it changes. That's a false doctrine of the Catholic Church, which is not taught in the Bible.

You claim to go "by the Bible alone". Don't you? Can you show me where when Christ says "This IS my body", He really means "this is symbolic of my body"? Can you do a search of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Version Bible, and show us all where the word "symbolic" is in the text of the King James Version?

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe it is symbolic like the parables that Jesus taught. It not unbiblical to believe it's symbolic. Jesus taught with parables all the time. We know Jesus doesn't have a problem with symbolic. You still never explained how you believe that a man can pray and the wine and bread can change. That's not even symbolicly in the Scripture. The Bible never mentions it.

 

[Scotth1960]

I believe it is symbolic like the parables that Jesus taught. It not unbiblical to believe it's symbolic. Jesus taught with parables all the time. We know Jesus doesn't have a problem with symbolic. You still never explained how you believe that a man can pray and the wine and bread can change. That's not even symbolicly in the Scripture. The Bible never mentions it.

You totally ignored what I said. The parables are not related logically to what Christ said about the bread and wine of the eucharist. You should be able to know that, you're able to learn from your mistakes. How can a priest of God pray to God and God will change the bread and wine to do this? Christ said all authority in heaven and earth is given to Christ over His Church, and therefore is in His Church; He charged His disciples who became His Apostles to Go and preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them. This is Christ's command to the Orthodox Catholic Church: To do this Eucharist in remembrance of Christ till Christ comes again.

 

[SantoSubito]

I believe it "is" the body and blood of Jesus, symbolicly. I don't read in the Bible where someone prays for the bread and wine and it changes. That's a false doctrine of the Catholic Church, which is not taught in the Bible.

I see the symbolic only presence as a product of enlightenment thinking i.e. "We can't see it change so it doesn't change". Up until the Reformation all the churches in the world, even the ones separated in far off India, maintained a belief the the bread and wine are truly the body, blood, and divinity of Christ.

In a way the non-Lutheran part of the Reformation really threw the baby out with the bathwater, especially the "Radical Reformation" that the Anabaptists were a part of.

No offenses but it's like people suddenly decided that since they broke from the Catholic Church they needed to reinterpret all of Christianity.

Basically it boils down to this with me, if it was taught by the Apostles in the early years then it must show up in some orthodox group sometime in early church history.

 

[Scotth1960]

I see the symbolic only presence as a product of enlightenment thinking i.e. "We can't see it change so it doesn't change". Up until the Reformation all the churches in the world, even the ones separated in far off India, maintained a belief the the bread and wine are truly the body, blood, and divinity of Christ.

In a way the non-Lutheran part of the Reformation really threw the baby out with the bathwater, especially the "Radical Reformation" that the Anabaptists were a part of.

No offenses but it's like people suddenly decided that since they broke from the Catholic Church they needed to reinterpret all of Christianity.

Basically it boils down to this with me, if it was taught by the Apostles in the early years then it must show up in some orthodox group sometime in early church history.

The problem is, starting the the middle ages, approximately the 12th or the thirteenth century, the popes of Rome began insisting on unleaved wafers and having the Eucharist (communion) in only one kind, refusing and forbidding the wine and the blood of Christ from the roman catholic laity. Only the priest could drink the wine (blood). This is totally heretical. We either receive both the body and blood of Christ, or we receive neither and don't even eat the bread and drink the wine which are the body and blood of Christ.
The Greek Orthodox Church has always maintained the correct and holy Eucharist in both kinds (2 kinds), the bread and the wine together, leavened bread, not azymes (unleavened) bread. As is correct and Orthodox.
The popes of Rome after 1014 AD reinterpreted the New Testament in the light of Augustine of Hippo instead of the light of the New Testament itself as it was understood by all of the other Greek and Latin, etc. Church Fathers. None of whom believed in or confessed Filioque.
God bless you.

 

[Scotth1960]

I believe it is symbolic like the parables that Jesus taught. It not unbiblical to believe it's symbolic. Jesus taught with parables all the time. We know Jesus doesn't have a problem with symbolic. You still never explained how you believe that a man can pray and the wine and bread can change. That's not even symbolicly in the Scripture. The Bible never mentions it.

The Bible never calls the bread and the wine symbolic.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

The Bible never calls the bread and the wine symbolic.

The Bible never said it wasn't symbolic either. I don't believe in the Catholic Church or their traditions. I do believe ONLY SCRIPTURE, so I don't plan to agree to any Popes or Creeds today. No where does the Bible say that the bread and wine changes. And the Bible does say that it was bread and wine. So if you want to take it literally and not a parable then it was bread and wine and the Bible doesn't say a prayer can change it or that Jesus changed it.

 

[Scotth1960]

The Bible never said it wasn't symbolic either. I don't believe in the Catholic Church or their traditions. I do believe ONLY SCRIPTURE, so I don't plan to agree to any Popes or Creeds today. No where does the Bible say that the bread and wine changes. And the Bible does say that it was bread and wine. So if you want to take it literally and not a parable then it was bread and wine and the Bible doesn't say a prayer can change it or that Jesus changed it.

Dear jonathanbchristian, It MUST change into Christ's body and blood at some point-in-time because Christ said, (And Christ is the Truth), "This is My body; This is My blood." Christ did not say, "This is bread, this is wine." Why do you think it's just bread and just wine, when Christ didn't say "This is bread. This is wine." He said, instead, "This IS My body; This IS My blood." What could be more simple? Why do you insist so much on making things complicated?
God bless you.
In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[dscherck]

The Bible never said it wasn't symbolic either. I don't believe in the Catholic Church or their traditions. I do believe ONLY SCRIPTURE, so I don't plan to agree to any Popes or Creeds today. No where does the Bible say that the bread and wine changes. And the Bible does say that it was bread and wine. So if you want to take it literally and not a parable then it was bread and wine and the Bible doesn't say a prayer can change it or that Jesus changed it.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’"
"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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:51–56).


While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26)


Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where Our Lord says, "This symbolizes my body." I do see Him saying "this IS my body" and emphasizing that we need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Seems to me that if you insist on the Bible alone, then you should agree that the bread and wine become His Body and His Blood. He says it, I believe it. Don't you?

 

[jonathanbchristian]

The Bible alone never says the bread or wine changes. That's Catholic. I don't believe the Catholic Church is the Church of the New Testament. I believe they persucuted true believers and I don't believe the traditions of the Catholic Church. I don't believe you have the traditions of the New Testament Church. If you use the Bible alone you will see that it never says that the bread or wine changes into his body or blood. Jesus was being symbolic.