"I havent scrolled through all the comments but for a good deal of them it's either Catholics arguing against this or Protestants justifying it. So I'll give a little change.
It is true that we Protestants view the Eucharist (I do call it that) as ultimately a symbolic act done in remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice; I believe the scriptures make this obvious, including the Catholic prooftext of John 6. Most fellow Prots here, however, take this to mean that we are at liberty to use cheetos and Pepsi, because after all, it is "only a symbol".
Yet what does that tell you about your reverance for what the symbol represents when you choose to swap out the clearly mandated elements with common products? How can you claim to revere our Lord when you take light of his Eucharist and have a laugh about using chex cereal and orange juice? I mean, chex and orange juice, are you trying to blaspheme the Lord? [1]
Our Lord's choice of bread and wine was very intentional, he didn't merely grab whatever scraps were on the table and say "let's used this!", as some of you do when you give the excuse of not having bread or wine at the time. No, bread and wine have clear visual relation to flesh and blood, making the symbol a potently visual one, not merely conceptual.
But more important than this, you show an inability to follow the simplest of commands from our Lord; eat bread and drink wine. He didn't say eat chex and juice, he didn't say eat kale and ribena. Bread and wine, very simple, and very easy to acquire, especially today. Almost 2000 years of Christians and almost 500 years of Protestants have been able to follow this just fine. Why do we suddenly feel at liberty to change what our Lord prescribed for our own convenience?"
~~~
[1] - Someone unironically commented about using chex cereal and orange juice as a replacement, then saying "God provides".
No comments:
Post a Comment