Replies

Sorry it took so long to reply. My parents are visiting from Ohio.Huh? What is it you think He explains other than the Catholic Eucharistic theology?

His crucifixion, and that salvation is found in Him alone as a result of the sacrifice He was going to make.

Let’s go through the entire thing in context. Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding the 5,000. What He fed them was physical bread and physical fish. It was this sign that prompted the crowd to declare Jesus a prophet of God and then call Him ‘Rabbi.’ Then He headed off to Capernaum, performing the miracle of walking on water in the process. The crowd caught up with Him at Capernaum. Here Jesus tells them that the reason that they sought Him was because they were empty and He filled them.

Verses 26 and 27 “Jesus answered them and said, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. (note: here Jesus is saying, ‘It’s not the sign that matters, it’s the meaning of the sign: You hungered, I filled you.’)Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.’”

But, the crowd misunderstood and thought that there was some sort of work they had to do to accomplish to receive the food which endures to eternal life. Jesus cleared that up by telling them that the only work that they need do is not work at all, but to believe in Him.

So the crowd wanted a sign in order that they might believe in Him, and they wanted a BIG sign. Almost challenging Jesus they said: Verses 30b and 31: “What work do You perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT." They wanted something on the level with Moses feeding the nation of Israel the manna for 40 years.

Jesus next had to correct the crowd. They were seeking the same bread from Moses, a temporary sustenance of a nation, but God was providing them with so much more. Once again, the crowd missed the point and sought for a physical sustenance, a sign of Jesus’ authority. Their blindness to the spiritual truth Jesus was trying to relay was the corrected plainly by Christ. Verses 35-40, Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Very plainly Jesus explains that though they seek manna, He is their sustenance and only faith in Him brings eternal life. So, so far, though physical bread has been referred to six times between verses 22 and 40, when Jesus refers to bread that provides eternal sustenance He is referring to Himself, not physical bread.

The Jews in the crowd recognized what He saying, now. Jesus was claiming to have come from heaven (saying ‘I AM the Bread of Life’ also would have led the Jews to recognize that He was claiming to be the Messiah.) but they knew Him as a human only. Jesus, again, had to correct them again, first of all saying that the only ones among them that will come to Christ and accept His teachings are the ones that the Father draws to Him. (he refers to this again in verse 64.)

In verse 47, Jesus continues the analogy of Him being the Bread of Life: “’Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.’"

There, in verse 51, Jesus prophesies His crucifixion to the crowd (“I will give for the life of this world My flesh.”) Up to this point, though Jesus had explained it to them, the Jews had misunderstood what He was saying, still trying to equate all He was saying with physical bread. They then accused Jesus of saying He was going to feed them His flesh. Verse 52: ”Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’”

Once again, Jesus makes the analogy of the Bread of Life, almost repeating exactly what He said between verse 32 and 51. This time, though, with another revelation of His crucifixion. Verses 54 through 56: “’He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.’” His flesh and blood here are the true sustenance for the world, they are what brings eternal life. But, how? By actually, physically partaking in the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood?

Nope. Jesus explains that this is not the case. In verse 60 we read that his disciples had the same problem understanding what Jesus was saying that the other Jews had: ”Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’” Then Jesus explains it to them in verses 61 through 64: ”But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.there are some of you who do not believe.‘ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.“

So, as I, and a lot of other believers would conclude, Jesus was making an analogy here. An analogy that He explains over and over again despite the misunderstanding of the crowd. And why did they keep misunderstanding? Because none understood that the Messiah was to be crucified. All expected a David-like conquering king, none expected the Lamb. Many in crowd thought Jesus to be a great prophet as evidenced by His miracles (verse 14) yet Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. He prophesied his crucifixion, and that salvation would be through His sacrifice (verses 51 and 54-58) yet they still could not understand. Jesus even knew that this would be the case (verses 36-37 and verses 64-65).

You see, verse 53-58, taken alone could be easily interpreted as the Catholic Eucharist. However, when read in context of the rest of the account of Christ’s ministry at Capernaum as well as in accordance with the rest of the Gospel, the Catholic Eucharist is not evident. In accordance with the rest of Scripture, Jesus was not referring to Communion or the Eucharist for two significant reasons: 1) Communion had not been instituted yet. 2) If Jesus was referring to Communion, then He was saying that Communion, not His sacrifice, brings salvation; that partaking in Communion, not acceptance of His sacrifice, is how salvation is received… which contradicts even verse 40 of this chapter.

Lurking - I believe it was said before, it's not a matter of majority vote.

God Bless.

**In accordance with the rest of Scripture, Jesus was not referring to Communion or the Eucharist for two significant reasons: 1) Communion had not been instituted yet. 2) If Jesus was referring to Communion, then He was saying that Communion, not His sacrifice, brings salvation; that partaking in Communion, not acceptance of His sacrifice, is how salvation is received… which contradicts even verse 40 of this chapter.**

I agree, one can indeed, go a lot further “according to Scripture” AND also according to 2,000 years worth of Church teachings by intellectual giants passed down by Apostolic Tradition which continues today...in the same tradition.

You write “in accordance with the rest of Scripture”...YET you didn’t give any other biblical ref. other than John and, as such, ended with your own personal interpretations as conclusions. See post #76 where Paul’s interpretations were posted but which you ignored ...and there’s more...the OT along with Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20.

In even fuller Context:

In the OT God’s request that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22:2) - there’s Eucharistic types. There was the bread and wine offered by the priest king, Melchizedek Gen. 14:18 which we memorialize in our first Eucharistic Prayer. Isaac and Christ share many similarities. The birth of both was supernatural. Both sons of promise. Both called “the only begotten son.” Both carried the wood of their own demise up the same mountain, Moriah. Both consented to endure death. Both were bound. Both were offered by their fathers. Both were laid on the wood. Both were in the vigor of life, and both lived again after the offering. Jesus and Isaac were both dead three days, though Isaac only figuratively. Isaac also prefigures Christ in the unique relationship each had with his bride — Isaac with Rebekah and Jesus with the Church.

The Eucharist is present in THREE distinct stages of salvation history. In the OT it’s present as a TYPE; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the EVENT; and in the age of the Church it is present as a SACRAMENT. The purpose of the FIGURE/TYPE was to prepare for the EVENT, and the purpose of the SACRAMENT is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ Mystical Body - the CHURCH.

The marital-covenantal that the Holy Spirit begins in Genesis then develops in the books of the Bible until the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride - the Church. This union is expected in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., all find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his Church: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20).

In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the “king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast” (Mt. 22:2–3). Here one can see the Old Testament prophets.

The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul (see post #76) declares that Jesus is “a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the “true bread from heaven” (Jn. 6:32–33).

Then there’s the FIGURE of the Eucharist in the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? “The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a TYPE: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God — the Eucharist.

When Jesus, like other observant Jews, celebrated the Passover, it took place in two phases and in two different places. The first was the slaying of the lamb, which took place in the temple. The second was the eating of the lamb during the Passover supper. This meal was a memorial, not only of the Passover and exodus from Egypt but of all God’s merciful interventions in the history of Israel.

The memorial of the Passover looked forward as a prefigurement to mankind’s exodus from the slavery of sin. As one meditates on the new covenant one meditates on Jesus holding the unleavened breed in his sacred hands and saying: “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19).

Jesus’ use of the words “remembrance” and “new covenant” (Lk 22:19–20) reminded the apostles that in implementing a new Passover Jesus was perfectly fulfilling the old Passover. The world had arrived at the “fullness of time” (Eph. 1:10) in which the TYPE BECAME THE REALITY, “for Christ our Pascal Lamb has been sacrificed” (I Cor. 5:7).

The four evangelists explain the EVENT that brought the new Passover, the Eucharist, into existence. John interweaves throughout his gospel the Passover (1:29, 36; 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14). In unfolding Jesus’ first miracle John introduced the chapter before from the lips of John the Baptist: “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (1:29, 36). In one verse he shows how Jesus identifies his mother, “woman,” with the “woman” of Genesis 3:1 whose “seed” will crush Satan’s head, and the event of that crushing, “my hour” (2:4). The same Jesus who by a miracle changes water into wine will later change wine into his blood.

John also writes about the Passover before the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves (6:4), which in turn introduces Jesus’ bread of life (6:26–71) where Jesus connects the Eucharist with its Old Testament TYPE, the manna in the desert (6: 31–35). In the second reference (12:1) John connects the resurrection theme with that of the Passover by his writing of Lazarus’ rising from the dead.

It’s John who confirms that Jesus died on the cross at the precise hour that his Old Testament TYPE, the Passover lambs, were being slain in the temple (19:14). In the Passover liturgy God instructs the Jews not to break a bone of the sacrificial lamb (Ex. 12:46); it is John who makes the connection with that rite and Jesus’ death on the cross: “For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken’” (19:36). Here John is quoting Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, and Psalm 34:20. And it is John’s alone of the four gospels that touches on the Passover significance of the hyssop: “Jesus, knowing that all was now finished said, ‘I thirst.’ A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (19:28–30).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus on the other part of the Passover ritual, the supper. They portray the Eucharist as the transformation of the old Passover to the new. They understand that the Eucharistic consecration already contains the EVENT of Christ’s immolation on the cross, just as future Eucharistic celebrations are inseparably linked to that same event. Jesus’ words and actions are literally creative - they produce what they signify.

Therefore in the consecration at the Last Supper and in the breaking of the bread, which became synonymous with the consecration of the Eucharist (Lk. 24:35), we have the symbolic and prophetic action that restores mankind in a new covenant (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 12:24). In breaking the bread Jesus breaks his body on the cross. The words of consecration constitute the moment of the mystical immolation of Christ which (in the sense in which we have used the word) “figures” Jesus’ real immolation on the cross. The great EVENT of all history is that moment when Jesus allowed his own death on the cross. His death and subsequent resurrection constitute the EVENT that institutes the Eucharist and ushers in the final stage of salvation history, the CHURCH.

Today, the Eucharist is present in the SACRIFICE of the MASS. As a SACRAMENT it is in the signs of bread and wine which were instituted by Christ at the Passover supper with the words: “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. . . . This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25).

The difference between Christ’s death on the cross — the EVENT — and the Eucharist — the SACRAMENT — is the difference between history and liturgy.

The HISTORICAL EVENT happened once and it will never happen again (Heb. 9:25–26). The LITURGICAL SACRAMENT not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history, Jesus’ passion and death, is made present again. We are brought to the foot of the cross and invited to witness with Mary, John, and the holy women. The old spiritual asks the question, “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” Through our participation in the SACRAMENT of the Eucharist we can answer: “I was there at the foot of the Cross.”

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is concluded as an event, but through the Holy Spirit it continues in time sacramentally and in eternity mystically. This insight provides the key to understanding John’s heavenly vision of the resurrected Jesus, who appeared as “a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (Rev. 5:6). While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom. 8:32) continues eternally in Love, that is, the Holy Spirit.
REFERENCES: There are three particular areas that are seen as unity within the Church: Christology (what the Church teaches about the person of Jesus Christ), ecclesiology (what she teaches about the Church), and sacramental theology (what she teaches about the Eucharist). The BODY OF CHRIST is three-fold...Incarnation, Eucharist and Church are interrelated. To understand who Jesus really was, God has given us the Church and the sacraments. When our views on the person of Christ, the Church, and the Eucharist don’t support and reflect one another, heresy creeps in. Error in one area of belief soon infects the other areas.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea5.asp

All things considered, Jesus explained the Eucharist best: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6:55). We are the BODY of CHRIST - we are Christ’s Church.