Another Eucharist question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Henning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Henning

Guest
How do I counter the argument that Jesus’ flesh and blood in John 6:53 are merely symbolic when John 10:9 “I am the door…” is used as an example of the symbolic. Jesus does not literally have a door knob and hinges on his body, therefore its not to be taken literally. Apply this reasoning to John 6:53 and it *seems *to make sense that Jesus is only speaking figuratively.
 
How do I counter the argument that Jesus’ flesh and blood in John 6:53 are merely symbolic when John 10:9 “I am the door…” is used as an example of the symbolic. Jesus does not literally have a door knob and hinges on his body, therefore its not to be taken literally. Apply this reasoning to John 6:53 and it *seems *to make sense that Jesus is only speaking figuratively.
Jesus never held a door in His hands and said “This is my body” (see Mark 14:22).

Jesus never said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you go through this door you will have life in you” (see John 6:53).

And St Paul never said “When we go though the door, we are sharing in the body of Christ” (see 1 Co. 10:16).

And St Paul never said “Unless you recognise the meaning of the door you bring judgement upon yourselves” (see 1 Co. 11:29).

And - but of no interest from Protestants - there is no Sacred Tradition that the door is real.
 
How do I counter the argument that Jesus’ flesh and blood in John 6:53 are merely symbolic when John 10:9 “I am the door…” is used as an example of the symbolic. Jesus does not literally have a door knob and hinges on his body, therefore its not to be taken literally. Apply this reasoning to John 6:53 and it *seems *to make sense that Jesus is only speaking figuratively.
I fail to see how the teaching that it becomes His body is opposed to His words, “This is My body.” In St. John VI., 47-67, you will find our Lord very emphatic about it. Like yourself, the Jews said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”; and Jesus did not begin to mitigate His doctrine and say, Of course, I don’t really intend to do that. What I will give you will be ordinary bread in a kind of little memorial ceremony. You really won’t have to eat my flesh in reality." Listen to what our Lord did say, “Amen, Amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life.” And He goes on to drive home the actual sense of His words. “For My flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.” You see how He left the Jews no loophole. Nor were they under any misapprehension. They knew what He meant, and He knew that they were thinking exactly what we Catholics hold now. They said, as you say, “This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?” And many of them left Him from that moment. He saw them going, and knew why they were going. But He would not unsay His words in order to keep them. He let them go.

That is not a logical conclusion. In fact, it is a dreadfully shallow fallacy, and quite opposed to our Lord’s clear statements which I have just given you. There is no logical parallel between the words, “This is My body,” and “I am the vine,” or “I am the door.” For the images of the vine and the door can have, of their very nature, a symbolical sense, Christ is like a vine because all the sap of my spiritual life comes from Him. He is like a door, since I go to heaven through Him. But a piece of bread is in no way like His flesh. Of its very nature it cannot symbolize the actual body of Christ. And He excludes that Himself by saying, “The bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world, and My flesh is meat indeed.” That is, it is to be actually eaten, not merely commemorated in some symbolical way.
 
I am no expert but if you look at verses John 6:48-52 you will see they are discussing the actual eating of bread(manna) and then Jesus clearly states he is the living bread and that the bread He will give is HIS FLESH for the life of the world. IN verse John 6:52 **the Jews clearly understood Him to mean true flesh **and state:"How can this man give us his flesh to eat."Jesus also restates that fact and in verse 55 He states MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK. He also asked his disciples in Verse 62, DOES THIS SHOCK YOU? He did NOT try to correct himself by saying something like, I was only speaking symbolically. Also because some refused to believe such a thing, many stopped following him.,John6:66. Even the twelve didn’t understand it yet…John67:-69. There is no comparison with the gate.
 
How do I counter the argument that Jesus’ flesh and blood in John 6:53 are merely symbolic when John 10:9 “I am the door…” is used as an example of the symbolic. Jesus does not literally have a door knob and hinges on his body, therefore its not to be taken literally. Apply this reasoning to John 6:53 and it *seems *to make sense that Jesus is only speaking figuratively.
The irrefutable evidence that the flesh is not merely symbolic is in verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Look at that last sentence: the flesh he is talking about is the flesh which he will give for the life of the world (ie, on the Cross). Did Jesus give up his actual flesh on the Cross, or did he only give up his figurative flesh?

In other words, if you deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist then you necessarily deny the Sacrifice of Christ.
 
The Gospel story was not made up one chapter at a time to be taken independantly but it was lived. Jesus promised his flesh to eat then held up bread and said “This IS my body.”

Had he said he was a door, then later held up a door and said "This IS my body,’ we would be confused.
 
The irrefutable evidence that the flesh is not merely symbolic is in verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Look at that last sentence: the flesh he is talking about is the flesh which he will give for the life of the world (ie, on the Cross). Did Jesus give up his actual flesh on the Cross, or did he only give up his figurative flesh?

In other words, if you deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist then you necessarily deny the Sacrifice of Christ.
I have read the supper accounts in the gospels and I don’t see anything about Jesus saying that if you eat the bread you will get eternal life.
 
389670, The references are not to the Last Supper, but to John 6.

Hope this helps, and God bless you,

Ruthie
 
I have read the supper accounts in the gospels and I don’t see anything about Jesus saying that if you eat the bread you will get eternal life.

  1. *]Mt 26:26-29
    *]Mk 14:22-24
    *]Lk 22:17-19
    In each of these recounts, what did Jesus mean by eating His body and drinking His blood? And why is this so important and must be done?

    Jesus gives the answer in [Jn 6: 25-68]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top