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.
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:
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.
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...
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.
FWIW, you might notice that the bread is passed (broken) before the meal and the wine is passed after the meal. Hardly the procedure you would follow if the bread and wine were transformed into Jesus's body and blood, but more likely a part of a communal meal in which those gathered were memorializing our Saviour's sacrifice. If the substances were truly transformed they would be consumed immediately, not just left sitting on the table.