The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

Catholic Biblical Apologetics ^ | July 23, 2004 | Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

[tiki]

Another thing that people often miss is that many of his disciples actually said "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" The apostles themselves, were also murmuring but when Jesus asked "Will you also go away?" Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go?"

So we know by this that many disciples, followers of Jesus couldn't handle this any better than those who today don't believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What made the difference between those who left and the Apostles is their absolute belief in Jesus. As Peter pointed out Jesus had the words of eternal life. It didn't matter that what He said was hard to understand, they believed in Jesus with a supernatural faith and if He said that, He meant that.

This is also not a parable. When Jesus used parables, he explained them to the Apostles and in this case, He said it and He obviously meant it or He would have explained it to the Apostles.

So if there are those out there who cannot accept this hard saying we are left with the knowledge that many who actually walked with Jesus and called Him friend is Jesus' lifetime could not accept it and many walked away.

As far as making any of these people understand...it is impossible, only Jesus can speak to their hearts and inform them of the truth of the mystery of the Eucharist. In the meantime, Jesus has given us a great gift and we can only feel profoundly humble for it.

[HarleyD]

I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a mis-reading of the Lords words . I think the apostles understood what He was saying but those not present have missed the actual teaching.

In part you are correct that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a misreading of the Lord’s words. The whole doctrine actually centers around John 6:60-66 of which the Catholics tend to leave parts out by focusing on two specific verses (see above in this document). One really need to go back to 55 and up to verse 70 to get the full context of the message. Our Catholic friends claim the take the “literal” interpretation but here is what John 6:55-70 says in its entirety.

Joh 6:55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He who partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father has sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he who partakes of Me, even he shall live by Me.
Joh 6:58 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate the manna, and died; he who partakes of this Bread shall live forever.
Joh 6:59 He said these things in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Then when they had heard, many of His disciples said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 But knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured about it, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you should see the Son of Man going up where He was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who is the one betraying Him.
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.
Joh 6:66 From this time many of His disciples went back into the things behind, and walked no more with Him.
Joh 6:67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, Do you also wish to go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the Words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we have believed and have known that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? And one of you is a devil?

This was a turning point in our Lord’s ministry. Many of those claiming to be His disciples found this comment to be offensive. As long as He fed them with actual loaves and fishes (John 6:9), they were satisfied. When Christ declared Himself to be the bread of life they realized their meal ticket was over.

Most interesting, and problematic, for our Catholic friends who claim to take a “literal” translation are verses 64-65. The true disciples had no idea as to what our Lord was talking about but all they knew was that He alone could save them. Our Lord point blank asked the true disciples (after the others had left) if they wanted to leave. Where could they go as Peter puts it? As our Lord pointed out to them, they were saved because Christ had chosen them (except Judas alone remained of the unbelievers). The rest were only in it for the free meal. This is really one of the greatest passages of election of all time IMO. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that grace is imparted through the Eucharist as is taught by the Church. In fact, the purpose of the communion is clearly spelled out by Paul:

1 Cor 11:23-29 –“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

At the risk of minimizing the importance of communion, communion proclaims the death of the Lord and shows that we wait for His return. It will go on until our Lord returns.

[1000 silverlings]

How many of us are aware, that at the mass, the priest becomes Jesus Christ?

[Ransomed]

“I hope all the RCs take the time to read it and see where the perpetual offering of the mass blasphemes the word and will of God.”

Dr., is this a common Protestant belief? Do Masses offered by other Churches such as the Orthodox and Oriental Christians blaspheme the word and will of God? Or is there some difference in the Catholic(Latin rite) Mass that makes it alone blasphemous in your view?

Freegards

[1000 silverlings]

2 Thessalonians 2

2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

24:25 Behold, I have told you before. 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

[ichabod1]

It has more in common with sorcery than with the Bible.

OK, that's just blasphemy.

[GoLightly]

The priest has the power in his magic finger, to draw God down from heaven, whenever the priest chooses. Jesus is then at his beck and call—Oh the power of it! The priest can crucify Him over and over.

Actually, not quite. The Mass has the power to take the congregation to a different space/time, so everyone in the congregation is experiencing the original crucification.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, the priest is Christ, according to the Catholic church

showing signs and wonders, pulling fire down fron heaven

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

[ichabod1]

Nowhere in scripture does it say that grace is imparted through the Eucharist as is taught by the Church.

Gotcha. We don't teach grace is imparted solely from the Eucharist. We wish all people could eat and drink worthily. If you cannot we ask that you refrain. It's that simple. It is desirable, it SHOULD be the most desirable thing in the world. But your state of grace determines whether you can eat and drink it worthily, not the other way around.

[ichabod1]

I guess you wouldn’t have liked it today when we put the Host in a special ciborium and erected a canopy over it, and then had a procession to our Shrine to Mary, with the Bishop carrying the Host, sang psalms, said the following, kneeling, and then processed back:

Blessed be God.
Blessed be His Holy Name.
Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blessed be the name of Jesus.
Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart.
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the paraclete.
Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception.
Blessed be her glorious Assumption.
Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.
Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blessed be God in His angels and in His Saints.

May the heart of Jesus, in the Most Blessed Sacrament, be praised, adored, and loved with grateful affection, at every moment, in all the tabernacles of the world, even to the end of time. Amen.

[tiki]

#43 check it out

[markomalley]

HarleyD,

Thank you for the nice response. I am confused, though, why you assume that John 6:64-65 would be problematic for a Catholic? Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would not be saved. For God, time, which bounds us humans, is not an issue. As the Catechism (paragraph 600) states: 600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2.) For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. (Cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18.)

God has predestined all of us to be conformed to the image of His Son, as reported in the Catechism: (As the Catechism reports (paragraph 2012), "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. and those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:28-30))

Please to note that I am quoting from the Catechism, not because I think in any way that you give it any authority, but becasue it demonstrates what the actual Catholic doctrine is.

 

Now, you make some interesting comments, though:

This was a turning point in our Lord’s ministry. Many of those claiming to be His disciples found this comment to be offensive. As long as He fed them with actual loaves and fishes (John 6:9), they were satisfied. When Christ declared Himself to be the bread of life they realized their meal ticket was over.

I agree with the first two sentences here, and metaphorically, with the last one, but I don't see that Jesus was ever running a soup line...please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You then go on and say,

Most interesting, and problematic, for our Catholic friends who claim to take a “literal” translation are verses 64-65. The true disciples had no idea as to what our Lord was talking about but all they knew was that He alone could save them. Our Lord point blank asked the true disciples (after the others had left) if they wanted to leave. Where could they go as Peter puts it? As our Lord pointed out to them, they were saved because Christ had chosen them (except Judas alone remained of the unbelievers). The rest were only in it for the free meal. This is really one of the greatest passages of election of all time IMO. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted.

Again, I really don't see how you can get that interpretation out of that section of scripture. Yes, the true disciples were separated from the false. "Eat my flesh" "drink my blood" are pretty durned explicit and unambiguous. I am not certain how in the world you could manage to ignore those phrases. From that, your statement, It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted, is clearly unsupported. No offense, but I cannot see how you can ignore that.

As to the section of scripture, you cited 1 Cor 11:23-29, but you only actually quoted through 11:23-11:26. The entire citation is:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Of course, you should also refer to the previous chapter (v16): 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?

Yes, the Eucharist is a solemn memorial to the sacrifice of Christ. But it is more profound than a simple meal shared between friends...

Thank you for the constructive input to the thread HarleyD. I do sincerely appreciate it...

[tiki]

Amen

[GoLightly]

He's very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?

To a Jew who didn't really believe that Jesus was Lord, it would be a perversion of Passover.

[adiaireton8]

For someone who claims to believe in sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture, it is amazing to me how often you appeal to non-Scriptural sources. Apparently either Scripture is not enough, or Scripture is not clear enough. It needs the words of Calvin and the Calvinistic confessions and catechisms in order to be understood.

-A8

[xzins]

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't.

Not so fast, Sky King.

Jesus then said, "THESE WORDS are SPIRIT and they are life."

This is where folks who don't accept transubstantiation have lots of reason to take a different stand.

[GoLightly]

Yes, the priest is Christ, according to the Catholic church

No, the priest is like a placemarker for Christ, but isn't actually Christ.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

For someone who claims to believe in sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture, it is amazing to me how often you appeal to non-Scriptural sources. Apparently either Scripture is not enough, or Scripture is not clear enough. It needs the words of Calvin and the Calvinistic confessions and catechisms in order to be understood.

LOL. None of the Calvinistic confessions is anywhere near as long and convoluted as the RCC catechism.

And unlike the RCC catechism, everything I posted in my comment, including Calvin's comments and the Heidelberg Catechism, was predicated on Scripture.

Anyone who actually reads the post can see that.

We are called to study the word of God so that we can preach it correctly...

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

And their word will eat as doth a canker" -- 2 Timothy 2:15-17

If something isn't founded on the word of God, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the praying to saints, the perpetual offering of the mass, purgatory, limbo, transubstantion, then it isn't worth very much at all.

[pjr12345]

I do hope and pray this better explains what the Holy Bible says when it comes to the priesthood and its Bible origins.

It doesn't. Let's let the Bible speak for itself:

Hebrews 7:26-27 -- 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Tell me, where is the re-crucifixion of Christ authorized in Scripture. What part of "once for all" do catholics not understand?

[Iscool]

Actually, not quite. The Mass has the power to take the congregation to a different space/time, so everyone in the congregation is experiencing the original crucification

Who would want to experience His crucifixion??? Other than the people that wanted Him dead???

The Apostles didn't want to experience Jesus' crucifixion, and they didn't...They all left...They wanted no part of the crucifixion...

That shows us that if your sacrifice was the real deal, and the Apostles were alive, they'd walk out of your church everytime you pulled out the wafers...

Peter wouldn't be caught dead in your church during one of your Masses...