Christ in the Eucharist (Ecumenical)

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘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?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "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.

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

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).

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Yes, context is a wonderful thing. What was left out of your context was Jesus explicitly speaking of the manna which the ancestors of these men ate in the desert. The manna was miraculous, a gift from God for their physical sustenance.

That discourse is much more salient to the discussion of the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist than the miracle of feeding the five thousand which, like the manna, was a mere precursor to the real miracle.

There is so much in that passage that supports the Eucharist and nothing that contradicts the Catholic belief or disproves it either.

you avoided the plain truth of what i said, the early church fathers, adhering to the teaching church, BEFORE THERE WAS AN BIBLE, and certainly before your man-made edited kjv version , believed and taught the clear truth of the real presence, AS CHRIST HIMSELF TAUGHT, your labored hermeneutical gymnastics to deny the clear truth of that is pathetic.

I will take the three-legged stool that consists of Christ’s divinely appointed teaching church, the word, and Sacred tradition THAT IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN EARLY CHURCH HISTORY, INCLUDING THE CHURCH FATHERS, THAT YOU DENY/IGNORE/DISMISS, as opposed to someone 2000 years removed, with an edited kjv and HIS OWN interpretation of it, OVER AND ABOVE CHRIST’S PLAIN TEACHING.

Thank you Cicero and my sincere (blushed) apology! I did not notice the red Catholic.com link).

Catholic answers does however restrict copying to brief quotations.http://www.catholic.com/about/permissions

Not that this is not violated by others at times in copying from on certain sites, and a “print” options usually accompany such notices, and often copyright notices go beyond what is legally allowed i think fair use may allow one copy be made for personal use.

followed the link in your post #5 and skimmed over the arguments..

Skimming is what is requiring to remain convinced that eating Jesus body is necessary to have life in you, and that eating must be literal. This is not how souls received life in them, but it a different gospel. Instead, believers life as Jesus did, as He stated in Jn. 6:57 (cf. Jn. 4:34; Mt. 4:4)

followed the link in your post #5 and skimmed over the arguments..

Skimming is what is requiring to remain convinced that eating Jesus body is necessary to have life in you. This is not how souls received life in them, but is a different gospel. Instead, believers live as Jesus did, as He stated in Jn. 6:57 (cf. Jn. 4:34; Mt. 4:4)

Well there you go! I have had a few removed and I understand, we become certain we are right and that blinds us. There is a lesson there perhaps.

You are certain the Church is wrong about the Body and Blood of Our Lord, right?

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist.

This thread is tagged as "ecumenical", and starts out like this?

Why should I even play the game?

Skimming is what is requiring to remain convinced that eating Jesus body is necessary to have life in you

Perhaps study would do you more good than skimming.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7
From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.

Thank you for those verses that confirm Catholic belief. <<<>>> Really? 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ Jesus is the Word which came from the mouth of God. Bread alone is not enough, just as it wasn't enough for the Jews wondering in the desert. Jesus is the Word and it is Jesus in the Eucharist that gives life. I don't need to delve deeply into what you linked as I have the plain word of Scripture to tell me all I need to know about the Eucharist.

You are certain the Church is wrong about the Body and Blood of Our Lord, right?

Of that i am quite certain, as this is not the result of a too hasty view and missing two words, but is a result of careful examination over a long term, and its demonstrated Scriptural conflation, and which is different than my view i held as Catholic as a result of believing what i was told.

1 Corinthians 10

14
Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15
I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18
Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20
No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

But church fathers are not Scripture and are not determinative in doctrine, and even Rome judges them more than they judge her.

And the view of Ignatius has no more weight or warrant than the view of some so-called church fathers that marital relations are always unclean, as they “cannot be effected without the ardour of lust.” And that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, “will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,’’ partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. And that since a priest must always pray, he cannot be married. Or that odd numbers denote cleanness, and “two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact.”

Nor were they settled in all their beliefs, or in unity with each other, nor does all of Rome’s doctrine have their unanimous consent.

Meanwhile, it is abundantly evidenced that Scriptural substantiation was the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims.

I don't need to delve deeply into what you linked as I have the plain word of Scripture to tell me all I need to know about the Eucharist.

Indeed, you must not delve deeply but maintain a very superficial view of Biblical language on eating if you texts maintain such must be literal. Which again, to be consistent in your literalism, means David poured out water made blood, and Jesus lived by eating the Father's flesh, and souls were dead until they consumed the corporeal body of Christ,

Sacrificing and eating denoted fellowship, a oneness with those who were taking part in the sacrificing in identification with the object of sacrifice, and thus believers cannot be part of pagan communions.

And as the next chapter (1Cor. 11) teaches, to take part in the Lord’s supper is to commemorate it by care for each others, which the love feast, the “feast of charity,” expressed.

And thus to not do so, but to take hypocritically part in it selfishly, as they were in 1Cor. 11, is “not to eat the Lord’s supper,” as they were not recognizing the neglected members as part of the body of Christ, this being the context, and which follows into the next chapter.

What 1 Cor. 11 teaches on this is more fully shown here: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.