What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Eucharist (Real Presence)

For your information and discussion.

Christ in the Eucharist (from Catholic Answers

Christ in the Eucharist

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

Second Vatican Council and the Holy Eucharist

by Peter John Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

From the opening paragraphs of the Second Vatican Council, one discovers a renewed emphasis upon the Holy Eucharist as the central focus in the Church's prayer life. In fact this Eucharistic foundation first comes to light in the following excerpt from the tenth paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a fountain, grace is channeled into us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their goal, are most powerfully achieved.

Within this statement, one clearly sees the intention of the Conciliar Fathers to recognize the Eucharist as the center of the Church's devotional life. Within the liturgy, Eucharistic devotion is encouraged among the faithful as the fountain from which grace is drawn, and the end towards which all other acts of Catholic devotion are directed. In short, as Catholics we derive our spiritual strength principally from the Eucharist. Moreover, our purpose in fulfilling all other devotions is to draw closer to Christ's Real Presence in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

In fact, this Eucharistic theme will constantly re-surface within the Second Vatican Council's other documents, as witnessed from the following excerpt of the Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

"Each must share frequently in the sacraments, the Eucharist especially, and in liturgical rites. Each must apply himself constantly to prayer, self-denial, active brotherly service, and the exercise of all virtues. For charity, as the bond of perfection and the fulfillment of the law (cf. Col. 3:14; Rom. 13:10), rules over all the means of attaining holiness, gives life to them, and makes them work." [paragraph 42]

As one can read from the above, the Second Vatican Council exhorts all Catholics to partake of the sacraments frequently, particularly the Eucharist which has previously been recognized in Sacrosanctum Concilium as the source and the summit of the spiritual life. In so doing we as individual Catholics perfect the virtue of Charity, which we know from St. Paul to be the most important virtue, the virtue without which all our other acts of piety are meaningless. Charity is perfected through the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments in a worthy manner, and through this same action we grow in holiness.

Why are the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, so intrinsic to the cultivation of Christian Charity? The answer to this question lay in the fact Charity unites men with God, as well as with one another. In such a role, Charity is the fruit of unity with God and with other believers. As the sacrament of communion, the Holy Eucharist is by that very fact the sacrament of unity. Thus the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, rightly expresses the correlation between the unity of the Church with God and the Eucharist in the following manner:

Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar of the cross, He prayed to His Father for those who believe: "That all may be one even as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (Jn. 17:21). In His Church He instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about. [paragraph 2]

What is of interest to note in the above is the Council's teaching the Eucharist is the sacrament through which the unity of the Church is both signified, and brought about. This simply means the Eucharist is the sign of unity within the Church, or in other words the Eucharist represents the unity of Catholic believers both with God and with each other. However, the Eucharist also brings about this unity which is represented, gathering the faithful into one Body the Church and uniting us with God the Father through the reception of Christ's Body and Blood. As such, the Eucharist is a foretaste of what awaits the believer in Heaven, when united with other believers he will behold God face-to-face.

This last point is also reiterated by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, as one reads in the 38^th paragraph of the Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church, Gaudium et Spes:

The Lord left behind a pledge of this hope and strength for life's journey in that sacrament of faith where natural elements refined by man are changed into His glorified Body and Blood, providing a meal of brotherly solidarity and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

And thus another facet of the Holy Eucharist is brought to light by the Second Vatican Council, that of fortification in faith and hope of things to come in the eternal. If I may borrow an expression from the noted Biblical scholar and convert, Dr. Scott Hahn, what we discern from this excerpt of Gaudium et Spes is the Eucharist's connection with covenant theology. For in granting us communion during this lifetime, Christ's Body and Blood is freely pledged within the Catholic covenant as the foreshadowing of the heavenly banquet awaiting us in the life to come.

This divine pledge of Our Lord's Body and Blood, the Second Vatican Council assures us, is so important in uniting the Church that all her other actions are directed towards it. As Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, explains:

No Christian community, however, can be built up unless it has its basis and center in the celebration of the most Holy Eucharist. Here, therefore, all education in the spirit of community must originate. If this celebration is to be sincere and thorough, it must lead to various works of charity and mutual help, as well as to missionary activity and to different forms of Christian witness. [article 6]

To reiterate a theme which has become consistent throughout the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the Eucharist is the center of the Church. As we learn from the Council fathers, not only is the Eucharist central in devotional matters, but in catechetical and educational matters as well. The various other actions of the Church, including corporal works of mercy and missionary apostolate, derive their spiritual foundation from the Holy Eucharist. These latter works, the Council assures us, are the fruits of a sincere Eucharistic faith.

Along these lines, Presbyterorum Ordinis continues by offering us the following insight into the relationship between the Eucharist and all other Catholic action:

The other sacraments, as well as every ministry of the Church and every work of the apostolate, are linked with the holy Eucharist and are directed toward it. For the most blessed Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth, that is, Christ Himself, our Passover and living bread. Through His Very flesh, made vital and vitalizing by the Holy Spirit, He offers life to men. They are thereby invited and led to offer themselves, their labors, and all created things together with him. [PO 5]

Basically, one reads in the above a restatement of Sacrosanctum Concilium's radical invitation to make of the Eucharist the source and the summit of our spiritual lives as Catholics. Every work of the apostolate, as well as all other sacraments, are intrinsically linked to the Holy Eucharist, the spiritual end towards which they are directed. All of Catholic action recommended to us from Holy Scripture and Tradition is contained in the Holy Eucharist, which is the very Body and Blood of Our Lord present within our midst today, and without which there can be no life in the spiritual sense. Thus the Council fathers cannot but conclude as follows:

Hence the Eucharist shows itself to be the source and the apex of the whole work of preaching the gospel. Those under instruction are introduced by stages to a sharing in the Eucharist. The faithful, already marked with the sacred seal of baptism and confirmation, are through the reception of the Eucharist fully joined to the Body of Christ. [PO 5]

Repetition is the key to learning, and thus the repetition of Sacrosanctum Concilium's language of "source and summit" with regards to the Eucharist is not intended to be redundant. Rather, the Second Vatican Council seeks to emphasize just how central the Eucharist is to our faith as Catholics. In the above quotation, the Church emphasizes that even the preaching of the Gospel, or evangelization, must find its source and summit in the Holy Eucharist. After all, who is the Gospel but Jesus Christ? Therefore, in preaching the Gospel the Church preaches Jesus Christ.

Yet Jesus Christ, as the Church has always maintained, is really and truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist. Therefore, in preaching the Gospel the Church must, by necessity, preach the Eucharist. Moreover, as Presbyterorum Ordinis goes on to state in the following excerpt, in carrying out any action as Catholics we recall the Eucharist as the end towards which such action is directed:

Thus the Eucharistic Action is the very heartbeat of the congregation of the faithful over which the priest presides. So priests must instruct them to offer to God the Father the divine Victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives. [paragraph 5]

Moreover, through the ministry of the priesthood the Eucharist extends throughout the entire prayer of the Church, as noted in the following paragraph of Presbyterorum Ordinis:

Priests themselves extend to the different hours of the day the praise and thanksgiving of the Eucharistic celebration by reciting the Divine Office. Through it they pray to God in the name of the Church on behalf of the whole people entrusted to them and indeed for the whole world. [paragraph 5]

Thus what one reads in the above excerpt of the Second Vatican Council is a theology of the Eucharist which extends to the Divine Office. This is no small extension as the Divine Office is the Church's public prayer, and thus we return to Sacrosanctum Concilium's affirmation the Eucharist is both the source and summit of the Church's spiritual life. What therefore follows is that our churches, as houses of prayer, must center around the Eucharist. This too is reiterated by Presbyterorum Ordinis in the following manner:

In the house of prayer the most Holy Eucharist is celebrated and preserved. There the faithful gather, and find help and comfort through venerating the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered us on the sacrificial altar. This house must be well kept and suitable for prayer and sacred action. There, priests and the faithful are called to respond with grateful hearts to the gift of Him who through His humanity constantly pours divine life into the members of His Body. [paragraph 5]

In light of all the above citations from the Second Vatican Council, one sees that the Council's intention was to center the Church around the Eucharist. Nevertheless, certain individuals raise the objection that the above teaching from the Second Vatican Council applies exclusively within the context of the liturgy, and therefore all acts of Eucharistic devotion must be fulfilled within the Mass. Yet as we will see, such an interpretation is contrary to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, for the Council does not seek to restrict Eucharistic adoration to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, the Council openly encourages private and popular devotion, as clearly outlined in the twelfth and thirteenth paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The spiritual life, however, is not limited solely to participation in the liturgy. The Christian is indeed called to pray with his brethren, but he must also enter into his chamber to pray to the Father in secret; yet more, according to the teaching of the Apostle, he should pray without ceasing. […] Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.

While not directly addressing the issue of Eucharistic devotion, one can nevertheless discern within this excerpt of the Second Vatican Council the mind of the Conciliar Fathers. In essence, our duty as Catholics to pray involves more than simply our Sunday obligation. The Conciliar Fathers encourage private and personal prayer through which the faithful deepen their relationship with Christ, and such prayer involves popular devotion. Of course acts of popular devotion must be approved by the Church, however, those forms of popular devotion ordered by the Apostolic See are to be particularly encouraged. This last point is quite important to keep in mind when defending Eucharistic devotion outside of the Mass within the post Second Vatican Council era. For if one accepts the Papal teachings of Paul VI and John Paul II as authoritative in interpreting the Council, one must accept that the perpetuation of Eucharistic devotion outside of Mass is entirely founded in the renewal intended by the Second Vatican Council. One cannot, therefore, legitimately discourage Eucharist devotion on the basis of the Second Vatican Council's teachings; for the documents themselves are clear, the Eucharist is source and summit of our spiritual life as Catholics.

And it is in such a light, as we read in Ad Gentes, the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, that priests consecrate themselves to the service of the Holy Eucharist. For through the Eucharist all priests lead the faithful in joining themselves with the Church's missionary zeal:

"Priests represent Christ, and are collaborators with the order of bishops in that threefold sacred task which by its very nature bears on the mission of the Church. Therefore, they should fully understand that their life has also been consecrated to the service of the missions. By means of their own ministry, which deals principally with the Eucharist as the source of perfecting the Church, they are in communion with Christ the Head and are leading others to this communion. Hence they cannot help realizing how much is yet wanting to the fullness of that Body, and how much therefore must be done if it is to grow from day to day." [paragraph 39]

This paragraph beautifully summarizes the Eucharistic foundation of the Second Vatican Council, relating this Most Holy Sacrament to the Church's three-fold mission of proclaiming the Gospel, sanctifying the faithful, and governing the order and the discipline of the Church. For through the Eucharist the ministry of the priesthood through which we are sanctified, the hierarchy of the Church through which we are governed, and the missionary action of the Church through which the Gospel is preached, are brought together in order to perfect the Church. In short, the Second Vatican Council summarizes the effects of the Holy Eucharist as the source and summit of the Catholic spiritual life. In such a light, the Church's missionary zeal is nothing more than an attempt to bring the non-Catholic into the Catholic Church, so that they may share in this Eucharist faith and draw strength from Our Lord's Real Presence.

Originally published by "TCR News"

Copyright © 2001 by Peter Vere. All Rights reserved.
Used with permission.

This item 4456 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

Real Presence Website

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

What You [Catholics] Need to Know: The Vatican (or Holy See) [Catholic-Orthodox Caucus]

What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Marriage

What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Eucharistic Mystery [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]

What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Eucharist (Real Presence) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]

Good refresher on the sanctity of this Sacrament. Thanks for posting .

It’s a pity this is a caucus :)

Why do you say that?

Can’t say on this thread.

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.

You call this appropriate "Catholic/Orthodox Caucus" material? I dont think so.

I’ve already sent a private message to the Religion Moderator. He/She probably just hasn’t gotten to it yet.

Please be patient.

I can pull post #2 or open the thread, but it cannot remain a Catholic Caucus when it contains commentary about what Protestants believe and/or say.

Please be patient.

In expectation of what? Hopefully, that the caucus designation will be lifted, and/or that your post #2 will get pulled.

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.

Post 2 is simply a Catholic tract.

How many times have anti-Catholic tracts been put out here. I dare say quite a few.

It’s OK to open it up. The link to post #2 is in another place, so it really wouldn’t do much good to pull it. Merely a Catholic tract; there have been many tracts posted by non-Catholics. Hopefully it’s OK to post a Catholic one.

Please remember that this thread is posted FOR Catholics.

The caucus label is removed. The thread is open.

Tracts containing information about other confessions may be posted on open threads, but not on closed threads because the other confession has an interest in responding to the claims.