Another Eucharist objection I could use some help answering

[Gorgias]

I think one problem you’ll never overcome is that the Eucharist isn’t consume, rather it is the Body and Blood of Christ that consume us, you could say bite by bite.

Well, not precisely. It’s important to remember precisely how Christ is present in the Eucharist…

Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist. Therefore, we neither consume Him physically, per se, nor do we do anything to Him “bite by bite”.

Simply put its not the same digestion, it’s not even our digestion, it is us who is giving over to Him ourselves as he strengthen us to be received by Him.

Since the accidents of bread and wine remain, we are, in fact, digesting them. Your point is well taken, however: we do receive nourishment from the Eucharist – it’s spiritual nourishment we receive! I guess we could say – loosely – that it’s spiritually analogous to digestion, but that would only be an analogy.

 

[JoeT777]

Well, not precisely. It’s important to remember precisely how Christ is present in the Eucharist…

Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist. Therefore, we neither consume Him physically, per se, nor do we do anything to Him “bite by bite”.

In communion we literally consume Christ, don’t we? You can’t get around the physical consumption of the Eucharist. There is also a spiritual consumption or ingestion of sustenance which is described as quickening. And unless you plan on abiding only once in your life, we consume Christ “bite by bite”.

Since the accidents of bread and wine remain, we are, in fact, digesting them. Your point is well taken, however: we do receive nourishment from the Eucharist – it’s spiritual nourishment we receive! I guess we could say – loosely – that it’s spiritually analogous to digestion, but that would only be an analogy.

Would it?

Didn’t the manna from God feed the Jew in the desert? He offers a ‘True’ bread as well. It also gives sustenance to eternal life. Seems to me there is nothing ‘loosely’ symbolic about it. Christ said He offered a true bread one that nourishes both body and soul. It quickens, moves with sustaining fervor, like a child who quickens in the womb when receiving sustenance for the flesh and a soul with which to animates his body.

JoeT

 

[Frankenfurter]

What do you mean it’s assimilated?

From Ratzinger’s SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

The substantial conversion of bread and wine into his body and blood introduces within creation the principle of a radical change, a sort of “nuclear fission,” to use an image familiar to us today, which penetrates to the heart of all being, a change meant to set off a process which transforms reality, a process leading ultimately to the transfiguration of the entire world, to the point where God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

 

[Frankenfurter]

I think it’s important to point out that the person making the claim the Catholics believe that Jesus is destroyed by digestion is creating a false doctrine himself and then finding a flaw with it. He is making up Catholic doctrine and then taring it down.

You will see folks on this forum and others describe that as a ‘straw man’. It happens all the time unfortunately. And when it does, you have to be patient in pointing it out. I mean nobody wants to hear that there clever argument is just a little circle of make believe.

Point them to the truth and let them see their own errors. You don’t need to point out or dwell on someone’s errors, just focus on where the truth is and let them have the joy of discovering it.

 

[Robyn_p]

Alright, so I’m still in dialogue with this person even though I was ready to be done. He asked me if I would be willing to talk with a friend of his who he said had more experience with debating the Eucharist. I said sure, what the heck.

Anyways, we were talking about John 6:51 and how it sure seems to support the literal interpretation to me, when he responded with this:

‘‘The verse you quote John 6:51, only shows that you believe that a literal bread was crucified, but Jesus said that the bread he will give for the life of the world would be his flesh, so the language is obviously figurative, Why do you say that a piece of bread was crucified on the cross?’’

My first reaction was…whaaa? But I think every objection deserves an answer, so I’m trying to formulate a response. His logic looks bad to me, but I’m not exactly sure what to say.

I’m thinking of pointing out that Jesus saying the bread is his flesh is not the same as saying his flesh is bread, which this guy seems to confuse. But I don’t know, what do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? Anything else I could say?

 

[Church_Militant]

‘‘The verse you quote John 6:51, only shows that you believe that a literal bread was crucified, but Jesus said that the bread he will give for the life of the world would be his flesh, so the language is obviously figurative, Why do you say that a piece of bread was crucified on the cross?’’

Tell him that that is nonsense and that he cannot produce any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that even infers such foolishness.

This is just his misinterpretation of scripture because the fact of the matter is that Jesus Himself made it plain from the context that He was speaking literally. That guy’s response is essentially the same as the unbelieving crowd’s in verse 52 when they “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” With the subsequent result that “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”

My first reaction was…whaaa? But I think every objection deserves an answer, so I’m trying to formulate a response. His logic looks bad to me, but I’m not exactly sure what to say.

His logic is faulty alright and that verse cited above proves it, and especially in the context of what follows. Especially in verses 53-58 and 61-65

Point out that Jesus outright tells them that he is speaking literally in the same sense as he speaks of His return in verses 61-62
***[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? [62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

***Do they deny the certainly of Jesus 2nd coming? If not then they need to read the scriptures in context and “do not be faithless, but believing.” (John 29:27)

I’m thinking of pointing out that Jesus saying the bread is his flesh is not the same as saying his flesh is bread, which this guy seems to confuse. But I don’t know, what do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? Anything else I could say?

The definitive point is that Jesus goes on to make it a make or break point when he turns to the apostles and says,*** "[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” "

---

This is especially important when taken in context of Mark 4 : 34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything)because it shows that if there had been a different meaning to what he said he would have explained it to them. The fact that he did not reinforces that he meant precisely what he said whether anyone wants to believe it or not, take it or leave it. All believers face that same conundrum. Me? I choose to believe Christ. **
**

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Church Militant:

His logic is faulty alright and that verse cited above proves it, and especially in the context of what follows. Especially in verses 53-58 and 61-65

Point out that Jesus outright tells them that he is speaking literally in the same sense as he speaks of His return in verses 61-62
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? [62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

In verses 61-62 Jesus is trying to assure them that they will not be eating His flesh in the carnal sense. That is why he says “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” IOW, he will be whole and entire when he ascends to Heaven (His Ascension) It is also why he says in the following verses “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.…”

Jesus instructs them that this will not be a cannibalistic eating but a spiritual one. But it was still too recondite for the carnal Jews. But Jesus was also testing their Faith. It is still being tested to this day!

 

[Gorgias]

In communion we literally consume Christ, don’t we? You can’t get around the physical consumption of the Eucharist.

But, given the mode of Christ’s presence, that doesn’t mean that we’re digesting Christ in the way that we digest a hamburger.

There is also a spiritual consumption or ingestion of sustenance which is described as quickening. And unless you plan on abiding only once in your life, we consume Christ “bite by bite”.

This muddies the waters: you’re using a physical metaphor to describe a spiritual process, with the (side effect? or is it actually intentional?) that it seems like we’re talking about physical digestion. We’re not.

Didn’t the manna from God feed the Jew in the desert? He offers a ‘True’ bread as well. It also gives sustenance to eternal life. Seems to me there is nothing ‘loosely’ symbolic about it. Christ said He offered a true bread one that nourishes both body and soul. It quickens, moves with sustaining fervor, like a child who quickens in the womb when receiving sustenance for the flesh and a soul with which to animates his body.

“One does not live on bread alone,” eh? What sustains us the grace Christ gives us in the Eucharist, not the calories present in the host.

 

[Contarini]

So background: I have been dialoguing with a protestant for about two months now, mostly about the Eucharist. He doesn’t seem to have much of his own arguments, but he keeps sending me these links to anti-Catholic sites and asks me to answer it. I don’t mind, as most of their objections are easily answered, and I think it’s good to show him how wrong these sites are. I keep hoping my answers might at least let him see that the Catholic Church isn’t as intellectually and spiritually bankrupt as these sites say.

But anyways, he sent me this argument against the Eucharist that I wasn’t sure exactly how to approach. It’s arrogant and condescending like most anti-Catholic stuff, but I still want to give a good reply.

Catholics say “Christ remains present under the appearance of bread and wine NO LONGER than the material appearances remain; once they cease because of digestion, or from any other cause, the presence of Christ CEASES also.”

Now here we have the height of absurdity! The Catholic priest goes through this big ritual to transform ordinary bread into a “whole and entire Christ”, yet once we swallow Jesus, our bodily function of digestion and natural heat turn it back into bread. The only nourishment the Catholic receives according to their own doctrine is bread, because the minute the eucharistic species ceased, or was assimilated or annihilated by our digestive system, it is no longer Jesus! If you ate a “whole and entire” steak dinner, and 15 minutes later your dinner left you “whole and entire”, unconsumed and unassimilated, how then would you have been nourished? Let me put it in plain English…If Christ enters a man “whole and entire” and then as soon as the bread is assimilated by digestive acids, he is no longer present, then what happened to him? Did we destroy (to consume, eat) Jesus, or did he leave “whole and entire”? If you say that we destroyed Jesus, then you would contradict your own church doctrine which says that Christ is incorruptible, so the only answer is that Christ would have left “whole and entire. What a confusing and ridiculous dilemma tradition has put men in!

How should I respond? I mean, technically, it is right. We do believe that the Real Presence ceases after the appearance of bread ceases. I’m just not sure how to explain why this isn’t a ridiculous dilemma like this guy says it is.

This is why I think Catholics should not claim that their view of the Real Presence is “literal.” If it were literally Jesus in the sense of being the flesh of Jesus in the same way that bacon is the flesh of a pig, then indeed people would be physically nourished by human flesh. But of course the Church doesn’t teach this. As Aquinas says, the presence exists “by way of substance”–the “accidents,” which don’t change, include everything that is physically perceptible.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is found in Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Assembly of God, and many daily religious talk shows and T.V. shows. It is not so prevelant in main line Protestant groups here in the U.S…

Linus2nd

Baptists would be the first group I’d mention. I would say “fundamentalists” rather than “evangelicals.” Most mainstream evangelicals do not think a lot about Catholicism, though they often worry that Catholics have too ritualistic a religion and that many of them may not be “real Christians” (which if you translate it out of evangelical-speak, just amounts to saying that they may not be in a state of grace, which of course is not a surprising claim to Catholics, although Catholicism does not encourage speculation about the state of one’s neighbor’s soul in the way that many forms of evangelicalism do).

SDAs certainly have anti-Catholicism as a key part of their raison d’etre. I have relatively little experience with Mormons.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Alright, so I’m still in dialogue with this person even though I was ready to be done. He asked me if I would be willing to talk with a friend of his who he said had more experience with debating the Eucharist. I said sure, what the heck.

Anyways, we were talking about John 6:51 and how it sure seems to support the literal interpretation to me, when he responded with this:

‘‘The verse you quote John 6:51, only shows that you believe that a literal bread was crucified, but Jesus said that the bread he will give for the life of the world would be his flesh, so the language is obviously figurative, Why do you say that a piece of bread was crucified on the cross?’’

My first reaction was…whaaa? But I think every objection deserves an answer, so I’m trying to formulate a response. His logic looks bad to me, but I’m not exactly sure what to say.

I’m thinking of pointing out that Jesus saying the bread is his flesh is not the same as saying his flesh is bread, which this guy seems to confuse. But I don’t know, what do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? Anything else I could say?

I think the word “literal” is pretty useless and does more harm than good.

Better to stick with the Church’s language-a real, substantial change.

Edwin

 

[OLJ2013]

During the concecration of the bread and wine, the ordained Catholic priest, by the power of God, changes the substance of bread and wine to the living substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s no longer food that nourishes our body, instead it is food that nourishes our soul.

As a Eucharistic Minister, we were trained to pick up concecrated host/wine, the body and blood of Jesus, that might have fallen because we believe that it is in fact the body and blood of Christ, we treat it with utmost respect.

 

[Robyn_p]

This is why I think Catholics should not claim that their view of the Real Presence is “literal.” If it were literally Jesus in the sense of being the flesh of Jesus in the same way that bacon is the flesh of a pig, then indeed people would be physically nourished by human flesh. But of course the Church doesn’t teach this. As Aquinas says, the presence exists “by way of substance”–the “accidents,” which don’t change, include everything that is physically perceptible.

Edwin

I think most Catholics use the word “literal” simply to mean “not symbolic”. You are right that this probably causes more harm than good, but I can kind of understand why they say it. It’s easier in a pinch to describe our belief as literal rather than explaining all the nuances of Catholic belief. Doing that might have spared me a headache or two with this guy I’ve been talking with though. I guess that’s why the Church goes through such pains to be precise.

However, I still think there is perhaps some merit to saying the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words is a literal one, if we define literal as the dictionary does to mean “adhering to fact or to the primary meaning of a term or expression.”

When Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we believe he was talking about really, physically, eating and drinking. Catholics don’t believe – like some Protestants do – that eating and drinking were being used as metaphors for believing. We take the words “eat” and “drink” literally i.e. in their primary meaning. In that sense, I would say it’s entirely appropriate to say Catholics believe in a literal interpretation, because that is what it is. I can’t think of any other way to describe to someone how we interpret Jesus’ words in John 6 at least.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think most Catholics use the word “literal” simply to mean “not symbolic”. You are right that this probably causes more harm than good, but I can kind of understand why they say it. It’s easier in a pinch to describe our belief as literal rather than explaining all the nuances of Catholic belief. Doing that might have spared me a headache or two with this guy I’ve been talking with though. I guess that’s why the Church goes through such pains to be precise.

However, I still think there is perhaps some merit to saying the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words is a literal one, if we define literal as the dictionary does to mean “adhering to fact or to the primary meaning of a term or expression.”

When Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we believe he was talking about really, physically, eating and drinking. Catholics don’t believe – like some Protestants do – that eating and drinking were being used as metaphors for believing. We take the words “eat” and “drink” literally i.e. in their primary meaning. In that sense, I would say it’s entirely appropriate to say Catholics believe in a literal interpretation, because that is what it is. I can’t think of any other way to describe to someone how we interpret Jesus’ words in John 6 at least.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Contarini was saying to avoid the word literal when explaining our view of “THE REAL PRESENCE.” But when explaining our understanding of Jesus’ words in John, yes, it’s literal.

 

[Contarini]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Contarini was saying to avoid the word literal when explaining our view of “THE REAL PRESENCE.” But when explaining our understanding of Jesus’ words in John, yes, it’s literal.

I question that too, actually. Jesus is not literally bread. Even the much-touted business about “trogo” is problematic, since the Church teaches that in fact the Body and Blood of Christ are not bruised or torn by the teeth.

I would say rather:

1. The feeding on Christ’s flesh and blood mentioned in John 6 is sacramental and not just (as many Protestants claim) spiritual;
2. The “spirit vs. flesh” contrast is not spiritual vs. material but the Holy Spirit vs. the sinful human mind
3. This is clearly the Johannine parallel to the Institution narratives, and taken in the canonical context of the NT as a whole it’s not saying “spiritual communion instead of sacramental” but “here is a deeper aspect of what you already know.”

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I question that too, actually. Jesus is not literally bread. Even the much-touted business about “trogo” is problematic, since the Church teaches that in fact the Body and Blood of Christ are not bruised or torn by the teeth.

I would say rather:

1. The feeding on Christ’s flesh and blood mentioned in John 6 is sacramental and not just (as many Protestants claim) spiritual;
2. The “spirit vs. flesh” contrast is not spiritual vs. material but the Holy Spirit vs. the sinful human mind
3. This is clearly the Johannine parallel to the Institution narratives, and taken in the canonical context of the NT as a whole it’s not saying “spiritual communion instead of sacramental” but “here is a deeper aspect of what you already know.”

Edwin

Well… I think you may be creating a problem where there is none. I was affirming Robyn P’s post (and understanding) not making a blanket theological statement about John 6. I’m afraid I don’t view #2 the same as you either. I think Jesus is indeed contrasting the spiritual with the material. Although I may not be understanding exactly what you mean by the “‘spirit vs. flesh’ contrast” Perhaps you are referring to John’s literary device rather than the words of Jesus.

 

[Contarini]

I think most Catholics use the word “literal” simply to mean “not symbolic”.

Right, and “symbolic” has come to mean “not real.” So why not just say “real”?

You are right that this probably causes more harm than good, but I can kind of understand why they say it. It’s easier in a pinch to describe our belief as literal rather than explaining all the nuances of Catholic belief. Doing that might have spared me a headache or two with this guy I’ve been talking with though. I guess that’s why the Church goes through such pains to be precise.

However, I still think there is perhaps some merit to saying the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words is a literal one, if we define literal as the dictionary does to mean “adhering to fact or to the primary meaning of a term or expression.”

When Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we believe he was talking about really, physically, eating and drinking. Catholics don’t believe – like some Protestants do – that eating and drinking were being used as metaphors for believing. We take the words “eat” and “drink” literally i.e. in their primary meaning. In that sense, I would say it’s entirely appropriate to say Catholics believe in a literal interpretation, because that is what it is. I can’t think of any other way to describe to someone how we interpret Jesus’ words in John 6 at least.

Good point that the act of eating is literal. But to say “we literally eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood” gives entirely the wrong impression. At least, unless you really do believe that you are practicing ritual cannibalism with a graceful veil of illusion thrown over it by the mercy of God. I have read popular Catholic accounts of the Eucharist that sound like that, and yes, I know there are some passages from saints and Doctors of the Church that sound a bit like that as well.

As I see it, the Eucharist breaks down our categories for talking about “physical” and “spiritual,” “literal” and “symbolic.” It’s an invasion from what Jews would call the “World to Come,” in which those distinctions don’t seem to apply (as indicated by Paul’s rich and tantalizing language in 1 Cor. 15 about a “spiritual body”).

And in particular, it can’t be expressed in the language of modern Western rationality. Ancient and medieval physics, with its language of “substance” and “accidents,” could deal with the spiritual aspects of physical reality better than modern language can. That’s why the Church hasn’t yet found a better term than “transubstantiation.” Perhaps some day a better term will be found. But many stars will set and come to rest in islands before that day comes. Or to quote from the same section of the same work more precisely, people will have to relearn what they once knew–that the stars themselves are not simply balls of flaming gas. . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well… I think you may be creating a problem where there is none. I was affirming Robyn P’s post (and understanding) not making a blanket theological statement about John 6. I’m afraid I don’t view #2 the same as you either. I think Jesus is indeed contrasting the spiritual with the material. Although I may not be understanding exactly what you mean by the “‘spirit vs. flesh’ contrast” Perhaps you are referring to John’s literary device rather than the words of Jesus.

If Jesus is contrasting spiritual and material, it would seem to follow that the “eating” is purely spiritual, as Zwingli argued.

How exactly is Jesus contrasting spiritual and material here?

And I have been trying to avoid the question of John’s literary devices vs. Jesus’ actual words, since I see no historical reason (and no compelling theological reason, though I recognize this is much more open to question given Vatican II’s reaffirmation that the Gospels “tell us what Jesus really said and did”) to think that any part of this discourse tells us Jesus’ actual words. From a historical point of view, I’m strongly inclined to view the entire discourse, and pretty much all such discourses in John, as theological interpretations of the significance of Jesus’ life and teaching rather than anything like direct accounts of specific speeches Jesus actually gave. This is pretty widely accepted even among quite conservative scholars (I heard the evangelical scholar I. Howard Marshall say this myself). But I’m not sure we want to go down that rabbit trail in this thread!

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

If Jesus is contrasting spiritual and material, it would seem to follow that the “eating” is purely spiritual, as Zwingli argued.

How exactly is Jesus contrasting spiritual and material here?

And I have been trying to avoid the question of John’s literary devices vs. Jesus’ actual words, since I see no historical reason (and no compelling theological reason, though I recognize this is much more open to question given Vatican II’s reaffirmation that the Gospels “tell us what Jesus really said and did”) to think that any part of this discourse tells us Jesus’ actual words. From a historical point of view, I’m strongly inclined to view the entire discourse, and pretty much all such discourses in John, as theological interpretations of the significance of Jesus’ life and teaching rather than anything like direct accounts of specific speeches Jesus actually gave. This is pretty widely accepted even among quite conservative scholars (I heard the evangelical scholar I. Howard Marshall say this myself). But I’m not sure we want to go down that rabbit trail in this thread!

Edwin

I’m sorry you feel this way.
I read the Gospels as the very words of Jesus, albeit translated and perhaps with some difficulty, much like the Fathers, Saints, Martyrs and Popes of the Catholic Church in ages past. I don’t subscribe to the historical-critical presumption that suddenly NOW, we understand everything correctly (and quite differently) from everyone in ages past.

 

[Contarini]

I’m sorry you feel this way.
I read the Gospels as the very words of Jesus, albeit translated and perhaps with some difficulty, much like the Fathers, Saints, Martyrs and Popes of the Catholic Church in ages past. I don’t subscribe to the historical-critical presumption that suddenly NOW, we understand everything correctly (and quite differently) from everyone in ages past.

I think we have a clearer understanding of just how the Gospels came to be written.

I do not subscribe to any historical-critical theories that involve radically questioning traditional doctrine.

I am actually very conservative in my views of Scripture. Probably about the same as Pope Benedict

Edwin