Christ in the Eucharist (Ecumenical)

Catholic.com ^

[narses]

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.

Again and Again

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).

No Corrections

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?

Merely Figurative?

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.

Their Main Argument

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 Confirms This

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.

What Did the First Christians Say?

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).

Unanimous Testimony

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

[daniel1212]

Thank you. And the Lord, “For in many things we offend all.” (Ja. 3:2)

[narses]

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.

[Jvette]

Not superficial at all.

The OT is not the NT and what happened in the OT is but a foretaste of what was to come in Jesus.

The Word did indeed exist from all eternity, but the flesh of Jesus did not exist until His conception.

Also, Jesus never says He eats of the Father’s flesh. That would be impossible as the Father has no flesh. What He said was that He had meat you know not of. Or in the KJV version, food to eat that you know not of.

Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.

Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church.

[Religion Moderator]

More leeway is given to the article on “ecumenical” Religion Forum thread than to the reply posts.

[daniel1212]

Jesus never says He eats of the Father’s flesh. That would be impossible as the Father has no flesh. What He said was that He had meat you know not of. .

That it was impossible is my point, but Jesus said,

"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. " (John 6:57)

So we "live" as Jesus did, and which was by believing and doing the word of God, as that was His "bread and butter."

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " (Matthew 4:4)

"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. " (John 4:34)

Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.

Rome teaches that it is the seed of eternal life and often RCs argue for their wafer on the basis of Jn. 6:53, that it is necessary to have life in you, making no qualifications as you cannot, for it means it is necessity to "eat" the bread Jesus gives in order to have life and to live for Him.

However, we do not see souls being born again or constantly exhorted to live by consuming the Lord physically, but they were born again when they heard and believed the gospel message, (Eph. 1:13) and the word of God effectually worked in those who believed, (1Ths. 2:13) effecting obedience. Thus the priority of the apostles in preaching, so that it was "not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." (Acts 6:2)

If the Eucharist was what Rome says it is, and critical to have life in you and to receive grace, it would often be mentioned at least in the letters to the churches. However, despite the paramount priority Rome places on The Lord's supper, it not a manifest subject in any of the epistles to the church, except the description of it as "feasts of charity' in Jude 1:12, and in 1Cor. 11, and which definitely does not teach that the elements are the Lord's body .

This conspicuous absence is set in contrast to the many exhortations to live by believing the gospel and live by the word as in acting it out in service to others. And which corresponds to how Jesus lived and died, and which believers commemorated in their "feasts of charity," which was not that of focus on a wafer, but a communal meal of sharing. Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church

Indeed, literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture, but that it must be taken literally here is the RC argument, but which is overall contrary to what Scripture says, and John's method of teaching.

[Salvation]

Christ in the Eucharist (Ecumenical)
Canon Law and Consecrating the Eucharist (Catholic Caucus)
COMMUNION THROUGH A FEEDING TUBE (And More on Confirmations)
The Eucharist -- John 6
Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist
On the Giving and Receiving of Holy Communion: Some norms to recall [Catholic Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Day: HOLY COMMUNION, 05-19-12
Following the Truth: Recognizing Jesus In The Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
The Fourth Cup
The Last Supper and the Forgiveness of Sins
Bread from Heaven: The Eucharist Sustains Us and Lifts Us Up [Catholic Caucus]
Essays for Lent: The Eucharist
Essays for Lent: The Mass
Excerpt from: The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Divorced Catholics and the Eucharist
Following The Truth: So, You Just Received Jesus…Now What? (Catholic or Open)
The Coptic Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice

Auxiliary Bishop Says Communion In the Hand is a Calvinist Novelty [Ecumenical]
How Something We Consider Solidly Traditional was Once Thought Progressive (Catholic)
Transubstantiation: Change We Can Believe In
Diocese limits Communion under both kinds, laments excessive extraordinary ministers
Phoenix Diocese to adopt new norms for Holy Communion [Catholic Caucus]
What Does GIRM 160 for the USA Really Say?
Lift the City - a Catholic Eucharistic flash mob (Catholic Caucus)
Justin Martyr: 1st apology: Sacraments, Eucharist {Catholic/Orthodox caucus}
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture [Catholic Caucus]
How the Mass is a sacrifice, and why so many deny this doctrine (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
[Ecumenical] Lent through Eastertide - Divine Mercy Diary Exerpts: Holy Communion and the Eucharist
Vatican consultant responds to Cardinal Mahoney ‘Christ gave Judas communion’ argument
New book connects the Eucharist with its Jewish roots
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (sections 3 only) {Ecumenical Thread}
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (sections 1&2 only) {Ecumenical Thread}
The Perfect Sacrifice: When Heaven Comes to Earth [Catholic Caucus]
The Real Presence [Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist, cont'd ]
Is the Mass a Sacrifice? (Once and for all, Heb 9-10) {Catholic/Orthodox Caucus}
Radio Replies Second Volume - Holy Communion
The Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist {Catholic/Orthodox Caucus}

Radio Replies Second Volume - The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Second Volume - Holy Eucharist
How Do We Prepare Well for the Coming of the Lord
Thanksgiving, the Prophets and the Eucharist
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] The Pope of a Eucharistic Springtime
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 5th Luminous Mystery: Institution of the Eucharist (Patristic Rosary)
Wounded in the house of them that loved Me
[CATHOLIC / ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Eucharist is Jesus' greatest gift to us, teaches Pope Benedict XVI
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] What makes Jesus present in the Eucharist: broadening one's view.
The Catholic Mass in 155 A.D.
Pope's Q--A at End of Priestly Year Pt 4 "We Celebrate,..Meditate..on Eucharist" [Catholic Caucus]
Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and Real Presence (Pope Benedict XVI) [Catholic Caucus]
Catholic Caucus: Eucharist is the Heart of God
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
A Secular Eucharist
Paul and the Eucharist
Centered in the Eucharist
Centered in the Eucharist
Who Can Receive Communion? (Catholic Caucus)

Respect For Christ In The Eucharist – One Priest’s Perspective
From The Gospel To Life: The Disciples and the Eucharist
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
THE PRIEST IN THE COMMUNION RITES - Liturgy Prepares for Reception of the Eucharist
Novena with Saint Peter Julian Eymard for Prayer in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament [Prayer]
Boston Cardinal: Church Needs 'Clear' Injunction Denying Pro-Abortion Pols Communion
Benedict XVI calls priests to protect communion between God and man
Eucharist: Holy Sacrifice
Fr. Men: The Eucharist [Cath-Orth caucus]
Catholics in Costa Rica outraged by disrespect toward Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
St Anthony and the Real Presence
The Essentials of the Catholic Faith, Part Two: Channels of Grace: The Eucharist
EWTN - October 29 - 8PM - Fr. Antoine and the Eucharist
All Should Offer Their Bodies and Blood at Mass (Father Cantalamessa) [Catholic Caucus]
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
Radio Replies First Volume - Holy Eucharist
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat Ch 54. MANNER IN WHICH WE OUGHT TO RECEIVE...BLESSED SACRAMENT
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat: Ch 53. CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

A Few Texts From Saint Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist
Catholic Devotional: On Visiting Jesus Christ In the Blessed Sacrament
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Focus on the Real Presence
A Chinese Girl-True Story That Inspired Bishop Fulton Sheen- Eucharist Adoration (Catholic Caucus)
Doubting Thomases(Eucharist); the Pitfalls of Folly(Catholic Caucus)
Rainbow sash-wearers prohibited from receiving [the Eucharist at Cathedral of St. Paul]
The significance of Holy Thursday (institution of the Eucharist and priesthood)
Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament [Catholic Caucus]
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Holy Communion and Non-Catholics (with a Quiz!)
Beginning Catholic: The Eucharist: In the Presence of the Lord Himself [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Receiving the Lord in Holy Communion [Ecumenical]
Faithful Invited to Follow Pope, Adore Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
Christmas and the Eucharist(Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Eucharist kneeling request sparks controversy [Catholic Caucus]
Eucharist vs. the Word (which is more important in the Catholic Church)
Christ the Miracle Worker in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence (OPEN)

Pope Calls Eucharist History's Greatest Revolution [OPEN]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 22: The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion)
A series of reflections from St. Peter Julian Eymard Blessed Sacrament(Catholic Caucus)
Eucharist, Holy Meal
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist
Christmas and the Eucharist
Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament
This is My Body, This is My Blood
THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS THE WHOLE CHRIST
Gift Of Life, Gift Eternal: The Most Holy Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
Area worshipers march to celebrate Holy Eucharist
Grace of the Eucharist is secret to holy priests, says Pope
The Disposition of Priests [Valid Mass, Valid Holy Eucharist?]
The Body of Christ?
Holy Sacrifice, Living Sacrament
Knights of the Eucharist
The Banquet of Corpus Christi - "Why did Jesus give us His Body and Blood?"
The Eucharist: Eternity and Time Together
Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation? Confirmation and First Eucharist together? (Vanity)
Reflections of Cardinal Ratzinger on the Eucharist

THE HOLY EUCHARIST: NOURISHMENT TO FINISH OUR COURSE
The Eucharist in Scripture - Part 1 - Old Testament
LITANY OF REPARATION TO OUR LORD IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist
Kneeling and Faith in the Eucharist
The Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist, a course in Christian culture in Tashkent
The Year of the Eucharist by Bishop Donald Wuerl
"While We're At It": What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity?
CATHOLICS AND BAPTISTS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT
The Discipline of the Eucharist Holy See Releases Redemptionis Sacramentum...
Vatican: Matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (April 23, 2004)
Devotion to the Holy Eucharist Advances Devotion to Jesus' Person
New rules on the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday
The Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist
The Holy Face of Jesus Christ as appeared on the Holy Eucharist
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist [Holy Thursday] [Passover]
Holy Father stresses Need of Devotion to Holy Eucharist outside of Mass: Pope Paul VI

[Salvation]

Are you saying that at the Last Supper when Christ blessed the bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body which will be given up for you."

And --

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice, and giving you thanks, he said the blessings, and gave the chalice yto his disciples, saying: "Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me."

So are you saying that Christ was not telling the truth?

[Salvation]

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

[daniel1212]

Obviously, you are either have a superficial understanding of Biblical and even everyday language, or you are purposely presenting a specious argument as you must defend Rome as being correct.

>”Are you saying that at the Last Supper when Christ blessed the bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body which will be given up for you.”<

Your argument assumes that the truth here must be a literal consumption of the Lord’s body (to kosher Jews who simply assented to eating blood, and Jesus eat his own body), based on the premise that eating and drinking must be literal, but which what needs to be proved.

If you had begun at the beginning of this thread i would not have to do this, but let me illustrate your logical fallacy,

Are you saying that when David said,

“Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it,” (see 2Sam. 23:15-17) that he was not telling the truth, that the water was in fact blood? He calls it blood, and nothing here denies it, and being a lawful Jew he poured out the blood, which is what priests and the Israelites did with blood.

Or that that a literal meaning is not allowed when it says the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.”

And that the people of the land “are bread for us.” (Num. 13:32; 14:9

And (consistent with words being eaten) when Jeremiah proclaims, “Your words were found and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) then a literal consumption must be meant?

Likewise when Ezekiel is told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And when John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9)

And rather than John introducing gaining life by eating, instead believing the gospel is how souls were made alive.

And thus use of metaphor is entirely consistent with John.

In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).

In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).

In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).

In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.

In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).

In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.

In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is pagan. And Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.

In addition, see post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2973260/posts?page=45#45 above, and here http://www.peacebyjesus.net/the_lord%27s_supper.html#Exegesis

[daniel1212]

And many of us wonder, in your own words what do kind and degree of assurance do these stamps provide to you?

I will take my answer in the AM. Thanks

[Salvation]

I don’t understand why non-Catholics who take the Bible so literally in other senses, do not take the passage about the Last Supper and the Institution literally.

Perhaps you can explan that??

If non-Catholics are sola scriptura believers, then wouldn’t they believe this Scripture?

[blackpacific]

Unfortunately trying to wrestle the true meaning of the Eucharist from the Sacred Scriptures can be no different for a Catholic than it is for a protestant. Personal interpretation cannot be the starting point, as it is fallible. Through the eyes of Faith the signification and consignification found in the Sacred Scriptures becomes most evident, and the theological works of the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church form an organic whole. I would hope that some might take the time to read the resources you post, but any conversion of heart would have to be a work of Grace, a gift of God. I’m not sure that arguing with a fellow Christian with one scriptural interpretation after another will effect any positive change.

“How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace.”

In the Byzantine liturgy, the post Communion hymn reminds us that: “We have seen the True Light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the True Faith, and we worship the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity hath saved us.”

[johngrace]

http://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html

[johngrace]

http://www.fisheaters.com/mass.html

[johngrace]

http://www.fisheaters.com/orderofmelchisedech.html

[HarleyD]

This question is at the very heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Indeed. I would suggest other parts of John 6 are more of the heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants:

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

....

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

[daniel1212]

I don’t understand why non-Catholics who take the Bible so literally in other senses, do not take the passage about the Last Supper and the Institution literally. Perhaps you can explan that??

Go read my posts in this thread including to you, and my link to more, and interact with that rather than avoiding the answer by parroting a defeated polemic which has been exposed, with your false concept of taking the Bible "so literally."

And that it is Rome that engages in reducing literal events to allegory. But just as Catholics evidence they are unwilling to engage in objectively analysis of Scripture, and only seeks to use it to support traditions of men, you fail to interact with the weight of the evidence against your use of the literal hermeneutic you demand here.

And you also failed to answer my question to you in post #50.

[narses]

Thanks for the Pearls!

[NKP_Vet]

“If non-Catholics are sola scriptura believers, then wouldn’t they believe this Scripture?”

Because the Jimmy Swaggart crowd say Catholics are not Christians and had nothing at all to with the early Church, and the church fathers were more protestant than Catholic. They give the Catholic Church credit for nothing. They put Catholics in the same league as Mormans and Johovva Witnesses, all preaching a false doctrine. We are all going to hell except Jimmy Swaggart and his ilk.

[Iscool]

absolutely hilarious that 2000 years removed from THOSE WHO LIVED IT, WALKED AND TALKED with the apostles and church fathers, laid the foundations of the church, and learned through Sacred traditions of the teaching church, about the REAL PRESENCE, that folks can sit here on this board and others with their edited kjv and pretend to know more than those who were there...

The only historical figure with any record who walked and talked with the apostles was Polycarp...And he is as Protestant as they come...

No one as of yet has provided the traditions outside of the scriptures that was provided by the Apostles...Still waitin', after 2000 years...