Catholics see the Son in the Eucharist

[runandsew]

The words Jesus uses for the word ‘eat’ in his bread of life discourse are not metaphorical. He uses the greek words ‘phago’ and ‘trogo’ and he mentions this 9 times.

phago means ‘to eat’
and trogo means ‘to gnaw’

He starts with the word ‘phago’ and then changes it to ‘trogo’ when challanged by the Jews.

Plus you have to keep the passover in mind when you are reading John 6 since it mentions it at the beginning of the chapter (verse 4: The Jewish feast of Passover was near.)

If you are wondering why this is so significant, consider the reference to Our Lord by John the Baptist earlier in the same Gospel of John:
"The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.” The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.

So with the passover mentioned in John 6:4 (and it was mentioned for a reason), we can see that John is trying to point us to the reality that Jesus is the passover lamb.

In the other gospels, the last supper (which was a passover meal) is mentioned, and there Jesus says that the bread “IS” his body, and the wine “IS” his blood.

At the first Passover, the Jews needed to sacrafice the lamb, but they also needed to eat its flesh.

And so on the cross of calvary, our Passover Lamb was sacraficed, and now we need to consume his flesh.
This is what Jesus is trying to teach us in John 6.

 

[BrianH]

The words Jesus uses for the word ‘eat’ in his bread of life discourse are not metaphorical. He uses the greek words ‘phago’ and ‘trogo’ and he mentions this 9 times.

Correct, being literal catches their attention until he clarifies himself.

 

[runandsew]

Correct, being literal catches their attention until he clarifies himself.

 

[Truthstalker]

By that logic, we don’t eat the Son, we only eat the accidents. I simply can’t agree.

Sorry, but if you are Catholic you must agree.

See //http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
where you will find the following:

The study of the first problem, viz. whether or not the accidents of bread and wine continue their existence without their proper substance, must be based upon the clearly established truth of Transubstantiation, in consequence of which the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii: manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini).

You do not see Christ. You see what looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread. The sight, taste, smell, and feel are the accidents. The substance, however is Christ.

Again, you see with eyes of faith…

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;1901201:

Are there any early chrisian writings that back up your interpretation of John 6?

No, except John 6 itself. Okay that is flippant…so…
no

 

[WBB]

They walked away after his explaination:

You are doing a typical protestant thing, taking a snippet of scripture and ignoring the rest. Let’s look at just a little bit more of the 6th chapter of John:

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

So, according to you, none of this refers to the Eucharist? Many many protestant theologians will disagree with you. But going beyond that, how on earth could the disciples be quarreling about the discourse Jesus gave later when he hadn’t even said it? They took issue that he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood as can be noted that they were murmuring “about this.” Do you really think they were offended when Jesus said, “What if you were to see the son of Man ascending to where he was before?” How is that hypothetical (what if?) statement offensive? BUT…AMEN! AMEN! I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." Nothing hypothetical there, on the contrary a DOGMATIC and DEFINITIVE statement as heralded by the “AMEN! AMEN!” Now this was something bizarre, something that even his disciples found hard to swallow, so they said, “This saying is hard to accept.”

How on earth someone can expect us to take seriously a charge that the Bread of Life discourse is not Eucharistic I will never understand. The only reason you don’t accept it as Eucharistic is because to do so damages your viewpoint. Catholics are not so blind as to ignore the entire opening 3/4 of that Chapter and believe that the disciples who left him did so because he offered a hypothetical situation of “suppose you see me ascend to where I was before” rather than because he told them that they MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[WBB]

Correct, being literal catches their attention until he clarifies himself.

Where exactly does he clarify himself? Does he refute that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood?

 

[VociMike]

Sorry, but if you are Catholic you must agree.

I must agree that the host is not Christ, that the contents of the chalice is not Christ? Hardly.

You do not see Christ. You see what looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread. The sight, taste, smell, and feel are the accidents. The substance, however is Christ.

So what is the host that I see? Is it bread or is it Christ? It can only be one or the other. What is the host that I eat, is it bread or is it Christ? As I said before, the same argument you are making also means that we do not eat His flesh, blood, soul and divinity, but we only eat accidents.

To see with the eyes of faith only means that we know that what we think we see is not what is really there, that what is really there is Christ. It is exactly because we see with the eyes of faith that we can look at “bread” and “wine” and say that we see Christ.

 

[6glargento]

one thing that i notice is that protestants look to the eucharist the same way that athiests look at the things of God. “you can’t see it, so it must not be true”

 

[kaycee]

Are there any early chrisian writings that back up your interpretation of John 6?

Augustine

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

 

[BrianH]

one thing that i notice is that protestants look to the eucharist the same way that athiests look at the things of God. “you can’t see it, so it must not be true”

Really? You don’t think it is more a matter of scriptural disagreement? It is always helpful to compare other Christians to atheists.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Really? You don’t think it is more a matter of scriptural disagreement? It is always helpful to compare other Christians to atheists.

It’s mostly Scriptural disagreements. Because from what I know from discussion this subject, there other Protestants who acknowledge the Real presence of the Eucharist, Lutherans, Angelicans, etc…

 

[kaycee]

Are there any early chrisian writings that back up your interpretation of John 6?

Clement of Alexandria

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

 

[kaycee]

Are there any early chrisian writings that back up your interpretation of John 6?

Tertullian

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle,** ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers,** who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

 

[Nicene]

Correct, being literal catches their attention until he clarifies himself.

 

[kaycee]

I agree with you, this:
Jn 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.

does indeed clarify this:
Jn 6:53: So Jesus said to them, "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;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Look again at Jn 6:63. It is the spirit that gives life. And what were the words the he spoke that are Spirit and life? Jn 6:53-55.

The flesh is indeed of no avail, because it cannot understand this spiritual truth. The flesh thinks carnally, like a human, with human wisdom. The wisdom of the disciples that walk away. If it were a symbolic truth, they would never walk away. Kinda pointless to walk away from a symbol, or be offended by it.

In fact downright ludicrous considering some of the other things he taught them. Walking away from a symbol? Hardly.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

It appears you are incorrect. Jesus taught almost exclusively in parables and symbols! Is Jesus also a real Vine with real branches? Is Jesus also a literal wooden gate? Is Jesus also a literal woolen lamb with 4 legs?

Matt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

John 16:25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” 29 **Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. **30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” 31 “You believe at last!” Jesus answered.

Clement of Alexandria
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6).

 

[RNRobert]

Augustine

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

But Augustine also said:

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

 

[RNRobert]

Tertullian

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle,** ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers,** who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

But Tertullian also said:

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

 

[RNRobert]

When Jesus said he was the vine, and us the branches, or when he said he was the gate, none of his followers said a word. Yet, when he calls his flesh real food and his blood real drink, the Jews grumble and his disciples walk off. If it’s a mere metaphor, then why did Jesus repeat it four times? When Nicodemus was confused about the nature of being born again, Jesus set him straight. Yet, when the Jews grumbled, He didn’t say “you misunderstand, I’m simply talking about eating a cracker and drinking grape juice as a symbol.”
If the Eucharist is merely symbolic, then how in the world can it cause people who partook unworthily to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and to make them become sick, and die?
To believe the Protestant position on the Lord’s supper, I basically have to believe that the Christians of the first 15 centuries of Christianity were mistaken until Martin Luther came along and set everyone straight.

 

[kaycee]

But Augustine also said:

Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation. For example:

Augustine also said

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)