Clarification on the Eucharist please!

[dje101]

Hi everyone,

So I caught the episode of CAL on Wednesday when he had the author of “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” on the program. I have a question that I hope someone would be able to clear up for me.

CAL discussed the “Bread of the Presence” and how in Jewish tradition, that was THE presence of the Lord among the people. Now when they had the sin offering of the male lamb, the members of the household would eat of the lamb. My brother posed the question to me in regards to the Eucharist and transubstantiation, “If Jesus is the lamb and we are to really eat of his flesh, why don’t we instead eat of a lamb rather than bread?”

Here’s what I was thinking based off of the CAL show the other day, and please tell me if I’m right or wrong.

Christ is the bread of life that has come down to the world to save us from our sins. He is also the Lamb of God that gave his life as a perfect sin offering. Because He is the Lamb of God (sin offering) and also because he is God incarnate proclaiming that he is the Bread of Life (Bread of the Presence), Jesus combined both aspects of Jewish tradition. That is, we eat of bread in the Eucharist rather than meat because 1) Christ broke BREAD at the last supper, not meat and 2) Christ was BOTH the lamb and literally the Bread of the Presence, so the two are combined in the Eucharist.

I hope that makes sense. It made sense to me, but please tell me where I’m wrong or right so that I can remember this for future discussions with family and friends.

God Bless.

 

[the_phoenix]

:clapping:

 

[brotherjoe]

Sounds excellent. I also like to think that Jesus knew that bread was and probably always will be more readily available at all times, and thus a more perfect symbol of the most basic food for mankind.

 

[ajpirc]

Just wondering: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.” Does this mean that whoever doesn’t receive the valid Eucharist (Catholic or Orthodox) then you won’t have life in you?

 

[Glennonite]

Just wondering: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.” Does this mean that whoever doesn’t receive the valid Eucharist (Catholic or Orthodox) then you won’t have life in you?

Umm, yeah. That’s about the whole Catholic “baley-wick” in a nutshell. You take away our Eucharist (i.e. Real Presence), you take away our Catholic identity. And our salvation. We’re talkin’ spiritual life here.

Glennonite

 

[dje101]

:clapping:

brotherjoe:

Sounds excellent. I also like to think that Jesus knew that bread was and probably always will be more readily available at all times, and thus a more perfect symbol of the most basic food for mankind.

whew, thank God.

 

[DavidFilmer]

“If Jesus is the lamb and we are to really eat of his flesh, why don’t we instead eat of a lamb rather than bread?”

I just would like to add that unleavened bread was also part of the Passover meal. At the Last Supper, they would have partaken of both. But Jesus chose bread (for reasons that have already been mentioned).

 

[dje101]

I just would like to add that unleavened bread was also part of the Passover meal. At the Last Supper, they would have partaken of both. But Jesus chose bread (for reasons that have already been mentioned).

Yeah, I figured they did. His point was why doesn’t the CC eat meat during the Eucharist too, if it is supposed to be taking place in THE last supper.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by **ajpirc **
Just wondering: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.” Does this mean that whoever doesn’t receive the valid Eucharist (Catholic or Orthodox) then you won’t have life in you?

Umm, yeah. That’s about the whole Catholic “baley-wick” in a nutshell. You take away our Eucharist (i.e. Real Presence), you take away our Catholic identity. And our salvation. We’re talkin’ spiritual life here.

Glennonite

Perhaps not so cut-n-dried, even from a Catholic perspective:

*"I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the **salvation-granting presence of the Lord *[Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper."
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Jon

 

[Mintaka]

1. Re: why no meat, people should be aware that meat was expensive for people throughout the ancient world. You couldn’t just whack a lamb every week, especially since the sheep and goats only bred once a year. You couldn’t just run to the supermarket in the dead of winter. Temple Judaism had to go to a lot of trouble to set up enough flocks for the mandatory sacrifices, and they could at least hope to be able to graze the flocks outside all year. But you only had lamb/kid sacrifices available in springtime.
2. Mint jelly would also have been needed.
3. “This is my beef jerky” just doesn’t work.

 

[James224]

Hi everyone,

So I caught the episode of CAL on Wednesday when he had the author of “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” on the program. I have a question that I hope someone would be able to clear up for me.

CAL discussed the “Bread of the Presence” and how in Jewish tradition, that was THE presence of the Lord among the people. Now when they had the sin offering of the male lamb, the members of the household would eat of the lamb. My brother posed the question to me in regards to the Eucharist and transubstantiation, “If Jesus is the lamb and we are to really eat of his flesh, why don’t we instead eat of a lamb rather than bread?”

Here’s what I was thinking based off of the CAL show the other day, and please tell me if I’m right or wrong.

Christ is the bread of life that has come down to the world to save us from our sins. He is also the Lamb of God that gave his life as a perfect sin offering. Because He is the Lamb of God (sin offering) and also because he is God incarnate proclaiming that he is the Bread of Life (Bread of the Presence), Jesus combined both aspects of Jewish tradition. That is, we eat of bread in the Eucharist rather than meat because 1) Christ broke BREAD at the last supper, not meat and 2) Christ was BOTH the lamb and literally the Bread of the Presence, so the two are combined in the Eucharist.

I hope that makes sense. It made sense to me, but please tell me where I’m wrong or right so that I can remember this for future discussions with family and friends.

God Bless.

You’re right on track! John the Baptist says in John 1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.” He was referring to Christ coming to the Jordan. 1 Cor 5:6-8 says, " “ …For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast…” (This verse shows that Christ IS the Passover Sacrifice mentioned in Ex 12:11. The ‘Feast’ Paul is talking about is the Catholic Mass and is recorded in I Cor 10:14-31 & I Cor 11:23-29.) John 6:4 says " Now the pasch, the festival day of the jews, was near at hand.” Notice that the context in which this Eucharistic Discourse is set is in the Passover Sacrifice. From there, you read in verse 54 that you must eat His body and drink His blood to have life in you. Also, in verses 6-13, Jesus multiplies the Loaves and Fishes. Jesus prepares the multitude for the true passover by multiplying the loaves and fish. Jesus multiplies his body so that his household may partake in the passover sacrifice.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I was raised and am actively attending a Protestant Church.

I am not sure why dje101’s brother was asking the question, but can anyone on this thread share more information regarding why RCs believe in transubstantiation? From what I can find, this dogma did not exist until the 1200+ AD.

In simplistic terms, God’s plan proceeds from Jewish alter sacrifices (blood atonement), to Abraham/Isaac (sacrifice and God’s provided sacrifice), to the Passover/lamb’s blood to the Lamb laying down his life for us.

I get what has been quoted from John, but it only a small section of this chapter. If you read John 6 from verse 31 (and do not just start at verse 53) you get the whole message that Christ was speaking to…spiritual matters, not actual flesh and blood. Christ provides an analogy comparing the life giving manna to himself…worldly/temporal life to himself/eternal life. Real food/bread to spiritual food/spiritual bread. Further, when Christ hears his own disciples “murmuring” that verse 53 (eating flesh) is a “hard saying” he again explains that this is spiritual, not physical.

Christ himself refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine, after explaining that it is His blood, shed for us, a new covenant, he repeats that he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in God’s Kingdom. This is my body broken for you. Take eat.
How do you get from THIS IS to THIS WILL TURN INTO? Makes no sense to ME, especially considering the rest of John 6. Christ teaches the disciples (and us) to “do this in remembrance” of him to proclaim his saving death until He returns.

Lastly, any reference to drinking actual blood (Old Testament) equates it to sin. God’s word is not contradictory. God is the creator; He is not “in” creation or anything created. Can we see His majesty (i.e., his handy-work) in the sky? You bet. Does God live in a tree…NOPE.

Again, I ask these questions of out a desire to learn, not to disrespect. I am married into (for over 25 years) a large family of RCs. I have yet been able to understand this. I have been told I simply have to have faith. Why? A good Buddhist has faith…but faith in the wrong thing has eternal consequences, depending on the doctrine at issue. In short, I look to scripture, as Paul makes it clear it is sufficient for our needs.

 

[dje101]

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I was raised and am actively attending a Protestant Church.

I am not sure why dje101’s brother was asking the question, but can anyone on this thread share more information regarding why RCs believe in transubstantiation? From what I can find, this dogma did not exist until the 1200+ AD.

Here is a quote from Ignatius of Antioch in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God …** They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ**, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

In simplistic terms, God’s plan proceeds from Jewish alter sacrifices (blood atonement), to Abraham/Isaac (sacrifice and God’s provided sacrifice), to the Passover/lamb’s blood to the Lamb laying down his life for us.

I get what has been quoted from John, but it only a small section of this chapter. If you read John 6 from verse 31 (and do not just start at verse 53) you get the whole message that Christ was speaking to…spiritual matters, not actual flesh and blood. Christ provides an analogy comparing the life giving manna to himself…worldly/temporal life to himself/eternal life. Real food/bread to spiritual food/spiritual bread. Further, when Christ hears his own disciples “murmuring” that verse 53 (eating flesh) is a “hard saying” he again explains that this is spiritual, not physical.

Yes, Christ does say that he is referring to spiritual matters in verse 63. But read from verse 60.

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before. 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. But there are some of you that do not believe.”

One of the first things that we can see from this passage is that Jesus said one thing and the people didn’t like it. BUT, instead of saying that this is a parable, as he had in Matthew for example, he continues with what he was saying. He does not do a double take to correct himself or let the disciples in on the “REAL” meaning of what he said. He said what He said, and he left it at that.

Secondly, we can see that Jesus compares two realities, both of which sound supposedly ridiculous. He says, in a nutshell, that “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood; you don’t believe that? What will you believe if you see me rise to Heaven?” In this he is saying that if the second ridiculous event happens, then you can be sure that he is telling the truth about both statements. For example: I tell my brother that he must do A, and he doesn’t believe me. I then tell him ‘what if you see me do B? will you believe me then?’ Both A and B are sounding utterly ridiculous. BUT, then he sees me do B completely. If he therefore knows that I was telling the truth about B, then he can know that I was telling the truth about A.

Christ himself refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine, after explaining that it is His blood, shed for us, a new covenant, he repeats that he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in God’s Kingdom. This is my body broken for you. Take eat.
How do you get from THIS IS to THIS WILL TURN INTO? Makes no sense to ME, especially considering the rest of John 6. Christ teaches the disciples (and us) to “do this in remembrance” of him to proclaim his saving death until He returns.

Lastly, any reference to drinking actual blood (Old Testament) equates it to sin. God’s word is not contradictory. God is the creator; He is not “in” creation or anything created. Can we see His majesty (i.e., his handy-work) in the sky? You bet. Does God live in a tree…NOPE.

The author of “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” (I can’t remember his name, but he was on Catholic Answers Live on Wed) said that it is not a sin to drink the blood in this case. Leviticus 17:10 (I believe this is the verse), God says not to drink the blood because it was a common Pagan belief that one could obtain longer or eternal life by drinking the blood of an animal. Christ here is saying that we can drink his blood because He is the eternal life. So, essentially, we are not to drink animal blood to pursue eternal life because it would be to no avail. Only Christ’s blood is able to provide eternal life. As for your comment about God not being in the creation, continue to read verse 11 in Leviticus 17. It says: RSV-2CE

verse 10 and 11: "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

 

[pablope]

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I was raised and am actively attending a Protestant Church.

I am not sure why dje101’s brother was asking the question, but can anyone on this thread share more information regarding why RCs believe in transubstantiation? From what I can find, this dogma did not exist until the 1200+ AD.

I
Again, I ask these questions of out a desire to learn, not to disrespect. I am married into (for over 25 years) a large family of RCs. I have yet been able to understand this. I have been told I simply have to have faith. Why? A good Buddhist has faith…but faith in the wrong thing has eternal consequences, depending on the doctrine at issue. In short, I look to scripture, as Paul makes it clear it is sufficient for our needs.

For starters…here is something about Transubstation:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

Here is a website that explains catholic beliefs…for the Real Presence…to the journal that deals wit the Eucharist…

chnetwork.org/Journal.html

 

[heathnprotstnt]

For starters…here is something about Transubstation:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

Here is a website that explains catholic beliefs…for the Real Presence…to the journal that deals wit the Eucharist…

chnetwork.org/Journal.html

Many thanks. I will check out the links and the scripture.

 

[RosaryFan]

Sounds excellent. I also like to think that Jesus knew that bread was and probably always will be more readily available at all times, and thus a more perfect symbol of the most basic food for mankind.

Bread and wine are also the work of many hands for one product.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I was raised and am actively attending a Protestant Church.

I am not sure why dje101’s brother was asking the question, but can anyone on this thread share more information regarding why RCs believe in transubstantiation? From what I can find, this dogma did not exist until the 1200+ AD.

Something you need to understand about dogma is about how the Church proceeds with making them.

In the beginning of Catholic history, back when we just had apostles appointing bishops and making statements about what the faith was, there weren’t ANY dogmas. That doesn’t mean there was no infallible Tradition, though! Everything the apostles taught about the faith was infallible truth. As was written:

1 John 4:6, “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.”

The apostolic preaching was infallible. Remember, in the above verse, John uses the words “listen” and “hear” not “read” or “writing.”

This is in accord with Luke 10:16, where Jesus says to His apostles and the other leaders He appointed to teach the people, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

We also can read in scripture that when the apostles appointed a new bishop or presbyter to govern the Church and protect it from the “wolves” who spread division, they appointed him through the laying on of hands, and the Holy Spirit was conferred through this anointing.

Acts 20:28-30 (American Standard Version)

28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;

30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

In the above passage, the Apostle Paul commands the bishops to protect the flock from errors and deceivers. They are given that assignment through the Holy Spirit, Who made them bishops. Through apostolic ordination, the Holy Spirit made men bishops and gave them authority to preserve the true doctrine of the apostles. It wasn’t a man-made institution. If they had no authority to give a final word on doctrinal divisions among the faithful, they had no power to stop the “grievous wolves” and men who would arise from within the Church “speaking perverse things.”

But in fact these men DID have authority, the authority of the apostles, which was conferred through the laying on of hands, just as Elisha inherited Elijah’s authority through succession, and the Old Testament descendants from the House of Aaron inherited the succession from their forefathers in a lineage going down through the ages.

The apostolic offices also were intended to be handed down. As Peter said, when Judas died, “his office let another man take” (Acts 1). And we know from Pope Clement I, a personal friend of the Apostle Paul and a martyr, that the apostles instituted an apostolic succession to pass down the authority of all their offices, through the bishops they appointed:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

The Early Christians and apostles preserved the truth through the Tradition taught by the apostles and their successors. They had no conception of the idea that all the truth would one day be enclosed in a Bible. Indeed, the Bible contains no mention of such an idea, or even of the belief that a Bible should be assembled. 1st century AD Christians were content to accept the authority of the Apostolic Tradition preached by the bishops anointed by the apostles through the laying on of hands.

That is the faith that the Catholic Church holds to, throughout time. We hold to that one, unchanging faith, taught throughout the ages in oral Tradition, and confirmed by the writings of the earliest Church Fathers and the Scriptures.

The New Testament nowhere says that this Tradition will ever come to an end. But it does command us to hold to it, unswervingly:

2 Thess. 2:15, “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

1 Cor. 11:2, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.”

There are many other like passages, and some go so far as to call the oral Tradition of the apostles “the Word,” (Rom. 10:8), “the Word of Truth” (Col. 1:5-6) and “the Word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13) thus confirming its infallibility.

The Apostle John also writes at the end of two of his epistles that he has much more to say, but prefers to speak rather than write, so he’ll save it for when he speaks to his readers face to face. In these passages, it is clear that he doesn’t regard his written word as having any authority above his spoken word.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Now, about dogma. Considering we have an infallible Apostolic Tradition, preached by the anointed successors of the apostles, and can hold to that Tradition to know the truth, there is no need for dogmas, most of the time. Take Transubstantiation, for example, since that’s the topic of this thread. It was an undisputed doctrine of the Church for 1200 years. Because it was undisputed and accepted by virtually everyone, on the authority of Tradition and Apostolic Succession, as well as Scripture, no one saw a need to create an infallible dogma explaining the teaching in a final and authoritative way. It was already accepted, and clear, so what was the point?

However, sometimes in Church history, heresies crop up within the Church and people refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and bishops, or the ancient Tradition.

When large numbers of people accept some new heresy, and many faithful Catholics are confused as to what the true apostolic faith really is on the debated question, the Church sees that it is necessary to create a dogma. When the Church creates a dogma and distributes knowledge of it to all the churches, commanding obedience, all the faithful can see what the Catholic faith is. The wording of dogmas is clear and precise, and is meant to resolve debates. Precedent for this practice of the anointed Church leaders delivering infallible commands in council for obedience among all the churches is found in Acts 15 (especially verse 28) and 16:4. The model of Church governance the apostles instituted, which can be seen in practice in Acts 15, is still the model of governance by which the Church is ruled.

We didn’t just invent the doctrine of the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea, in the 4th century. The Council of Nicaea is the point in Church history that we created an infallible dogma defining the doctrine of the Trinity for all the ages. The earlier centuries of Christian history, prior to the 4th century, had also believed in the Trinity. However, the Arian heretics arose, rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, so they had to be refuted. The Church leaders, the bishops and Pope, assembled and gave a dogma defining the doctrine of the Trinity for all, so that all would know clearly and definitively what the Catholic faith is, on this question. The authority of Peter and the apostles was invoked by the bishops and their decree was given through the charism of infallibility. They made the dogma because people were rejecting the Trinity.

Similarly, Transubstantiation was always believed by Christians prior to the dogmatic definition. However, many Scholastics in the High Medieval Ages rejected this ancient doctrine, and they led others also into error, so the Church found this ancient and apostolic teaching was suffering a serious challenge for the first time. In reaction to this heresy, in order to defend the faithful, the Catholic Church dogmatically defined what had always been believed – that the Eucharist truly is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, just as He said.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I get what has been quoted from John, but it only a small section of this chapter. If you read John 6 from verse 31 (and do not just start at verse 53) you get the whole message that Christ was speaking to…spiritual matters, not actual flesh and blood. Christ provides an analogy comparing the life giving manna to himself…worldly/temporal life to himself/eternal life. Real food/bread to spiritual food/spiritual bread.

Up to verse 51, it does not look like Jesus’ Jewish listeners were interpreting Him as speaking of literal flesh and blood, either. He hadn’t spoken explicitly about offering them His flesh and blood to eat, yet. So when they murmur about His words in verses 41-42, they aren’t complaining about having to eat His flesh and blood, yet. Rather, they are complaining about His claim that He has come down from Heaven, and questioning how that can be so, considering they know His parents.

His words in the earlier part of the passage allow for symbolic/spiritual interpretations that deny a physical eating and drinking of flesh and blood.

However, these earlier parts of Jesus’ words also make the most sense in the context of Catholic theology of Transubstantiation.

For instance, in verse 32, Jesus compares the bread that God gave through Moses, giving physical life to Israel, to Himself, the Bread that gives spiritual life to the world. The parallelism He is drawing here is made perfect if He does indeed come in the accidents of bread, true bread from Heaven that we eat. If our faith in Him is supposed to be eating, and that is all that He is referring to (something He never says explicitly in this or any discourse), the parallelism between the gift of bread through Moses and the gift of Jesus is not so perfect.

In the other verses, up to about 51, Jesus’ words about Himself being the bread of life could be construed as not referring to physical realities. He does indeed, as you say, talk about faith and eternal life, about His having come from the Father and His role in raising others up to be with Him. He also talks about the role of the Bread of Life in satisfying spiritual hunger and thirst (v. 35) and lifting us up to Heaven.

None of these words contradict Transubstantiation, though none of them demand it, either.

His later words, however, do demand our faith in Transubstantiation.

Think about it this way. If a Jew asked you, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”, how would you answer? Or if the Jew asked a Protestant pastor, how would that pastor be likely to answer?

I would be willing to bet you anything they would NOT answer as Jesus answers.

They would say, “we eat of him by believing in him,” or, “we don’t actually eat his flesh. He sacrificed his flesh for us on the cross, and by believing in him, and having faith, we could be considered symbolically as eating of him, though we don’t actually eat of him.” Something along those lines.

Jesus does not say, though, “I am going to be sacrificed on the cross to free you of your sins, and by giving my flesh for you in that way, you will in a spiritual way eat of me if you believe in me. For by believing in me, you will live.” Or some other precise Protestant explanation. He doesn’t give a Protestant explanation to the Jews, when they ask Him about this.

His words in verse 51 had finally made them realize He was speaking literally. Up to that point, they murmured about how He came down from Heaven, but they don’t appear to have interpreted His words about being the bread of Heaven as meaning they would have to actually eat of Him.

In verse 51, however, Jesus changed this, because of what He said.

“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.”

His words seemed very plain. He was the living bread that they would have to eat, and He didn’t say, “you will eat by believing.” Rather, He said, “my flesh . . . is the bread that I will give.,” and He said you must “eat this bread.” They saw that He was speaking literally, and that caused a lot of contention!

They asked exactly what I would ask, if I heard this teaching. Clarification: Are you really saying we need to eat your flesh? How are we expected to eat your flesh? In what way or sense?

52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

A Protestant pastor would not likely simply insist to the person who asks them this question, especially because the pastor cares about the doctrine and salvation of the one who listens to him, “You must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if you don’t, you will have no life! His flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. You must feed on him.”

Can you envision a pastor giving that statement as a clarification of a purely spiritual teaching?

Yet that is how Jesus clarifies Himself, when asked the normal question people might ask when hearing that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The disciples fully understood, after all these explicit words, that He was speaking literally. Therefore they said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (v. 60)

Jesus answered, “Does this shock you?” It’s obvious that it did, because Jesus was vividly literal! He continues by comparing His ascension into Heaven with this other teaching, suggesting that if they saw Him rise back to Heaven, they would believe His Eucharistic teaching. dje’s statement about this, given earlier in this thread, makes a good deal of sense. There are several other passages where Jesus says His resurrection is the sign He will give to convince others to believe, such as His comparison of His sign to the sign of Jonah (3 days in the whale as compared to 3 days in the earth) and His statement that the sign He would give would be to tear down this temple and raise it again in three days. His Resurrection is the sign He gives, proving His identity, and that is the sign He refers to again in this verse, “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” The Apostle Paul tells us in Corinthians that hundreds of His disciples did indeed see Him, appearing to them in glory, after His Resurrection. This undoubtedly strengthened their faith in the Eucharist.

Then, in verse 63, He says that the spirit gives life and the flesh is of no avail. This reference to “the flesh” is used in the same manner as many other references to the “flesh” that He makes in the Gospels and Paul in his epistles. They use “the flesh” as a term to refer to unaided human understanding in several different verses, including this one. The flesh, unaided human understanding, is of no avail. But the words Jesus has spoken are spirit and life. He won’t go back on any of them. He doesn’t see a need to clarify them further. He has said very explicitly several times exactly what He means, and “as a result of this, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him” (v. 66). He allowed a very large number of His followers to leave Him out of unbelief, because they could not stomach His Eucharistic doctrine, the doctrine that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Christ himself refers to the cup as the fruit of the vine, after explaining that it is His blood, shed for us, a new covenant, he repeats that he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in God’s Kingdom.

Catholics also often refer to the consecrated wine or flesh, which is truly the blood and body of Christ, as bread and wine. They refer to it that way because that is what it looks like and tastes like. Jesus Himself refers to Himself in John 6 as “heavenly bread.” So He explicitly, in John 6, refers to His flesh and blood as “heavenly bread.” Whether He is talking about His sacrifice of His flesh and blood in these words or the gift of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, He is referring to His flesh and blood when He calls Himself bread. So this reference to Himself as the “fruit of the vine” shouldn’t surprise us, when this is considered. Indeed, in a previous chapter, Jesus referred to Himself as the vine. John refers to Jesus in the Book of Revelation as crushed grapes, wine tread underfoot. So Jesus Himself, His real flesh and blood, are referred to repeatedly in the Bible as bread and wine, and consequently it shouldn’t surprise us if He makes such a reference at the Last Supper, when He refers to that which He had declared to be His flesh and blood as bread or wine.

These words don’t mean the Eucharist actually IS bread and wine. In truth, it is just what Jesus said it is. “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . .” Yet it is referred to as bread and wine because that is the form it comes to us in. It is the divinely chosen appearance.

From the beginning of Church history, this was always understood.