Convince me about the Eucharist

[pablope]

(I already posted this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but it probably fits better here so I’m re-posting. Thanks!)

1. This is a two-parter: As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes transubstantiation takes place automatically every time a priest asks for it, but also only if it’s invoked by a Catholic priest (so, for example, even though the Episcopalian Church believes in a real presence, Catholics don’t think Jesus actually shows up when they do it.) So a) Do we really think we can summon Jesus on command? And b) if Jesus asked his believers to do this, and the Episcopalians are also true believers, why wouldn’t he show up for them too?

So there you have it. Any ideas on how to get around those stumbling blocks? Thanks!

Let me cite the example of St. Paul:

Paul is sent and ordained…so he has authority to confer the Eucharist:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Episcopalians…and other protestant denominations…disobeyed authority and set up their own.

This is what the Bible says about rebellion from authority:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

And the rebellion of Korah:

The story of the rebellion of Korah is recorded in Numbers 16. The rebellion of Korah demonstrates the grim consequences of usurping the authority of God and of those whom He has chosen to be leaders of His people.

Obviously, Korah thought that he could do a better job leading the people than Moses was doing. But by leading this revolt against God’s divinely appointed leaders, Korah was actually revolting against God (Numbers 16:11). Moses proposed a test to prove the source of his authority. Korah and his followers did not pass the test, and God opened up the earth and swallowed the rebels, their families, and all their possessions. Furthermore, “fire came out from the LORD” and consumed the other 250 men who were party to Korah’s rebellion. The rest of the Israelites were terrified and fled (Numbers 16:31-35).

Numbers 16:

6 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the Lord tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the Lord. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18 So each of them took his censer, put burning coals and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the glory of the Lord appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me. 30 But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt.”

31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the realm of the dead, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

35 And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

 

[Pax]

(I already posted this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but it probably fits better here so I’m re-posting. Thanks!)

Hi folks,

I was raised as a Protestant and am now dating a devout Catholic. I attend a Catholic church with him (since it’s a lot easier to pray as a Protestant at a Catholic church than to pray as a Catholic at a Protestant church), but am currently not planning to convert. There are a few reasons for this, but for now let’s focus on the big one – I cannot accept the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist. Symbolic, sure. Maybe even the presence of the Holy Spirit, OK. But his actually body? No.
…
…
…
So there you have it. Any ideas on how to get around those stumbling blocks? Thanks!

QuasiCatholic in Christ,

I developed a position paper on this topic that pretty much summarizes all of the reasons Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. You may find it helpful. Just send me a PM and include an email address, and I will send a Word format file for you to peruse. I would send it to you via the Private Message format except that it is too large and must therefore go by email.

God bless,

Pax

 

[Bballer32]

In the verses to follow the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6), which is where Jesus tells the crowd to eat his flesh and drink his blood, the Apostles ask:

6:60 “This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?”

Now, I don’t know about you, but when i hear a metaphor i don’t believe that it is a teaching. I believe that a metaphor is an example of teaching to be presented in the near future.

So, if Jesus was speaking in Metaphors, he would have called back all those people who left him and said “Wait! Wait! Hold on a second. I haven’t got to the teaching yet!” But instead he let’s them go and that is when the Apostles knew that it was a teaching and not a metaphor.

We must also look at what is said after Jesus hears some of his disciples complaining about this teaching.

61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”

In the Red, Jesus calls out the disciples’ beliefs. Basically, if they believe that he can ascend than why can’t they believe that He can give them His flesh to it.

In the Blue, Jesus gives His disciples the hint that he is speaking from the Divine. Therefore, his teaching cannot be metaphorical because the Divine is not a metaphor it is true.

Also to point out that the Apostles knew that they received his body at the Last Supper because they remember Jesus telling him that the bread they eat will be his flesh and so when Jesus says “This is my Body which will be given up for you” the Apostles immediately knew that this was truly Jesus’ body. The apostles also learned at the Last Supper that they had the power to bring about the Body and Blood when Christ said “Do this in remembrance of me.”

And there ya go

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They also thought the Earth was at the center of the universe, that the Earth was flat, that women were forbidden from speaking in church, that it was OK for priests to be married, etc.

Just because a belief or interpretation has survived since the early days doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct, or that it won’t change in the future.

And Protestants don’t doubt Jesus’ sacrifice. We just think the one sacrifice was enough. No need to relive it over and over again in cracker form.

The Eucharist is NOT a cracker, and it is not Christ being sacrificed ‘over and over’. That entire thought is extremely offensive to Catholic AND Orthodox and I dare say to Lutherans and Episcopalians too. Every time we celebrate Mass, we are present at both the Last Supper AND the sacrifice on Calvary. It is the SAME sacrifice, mystically present to us beyond all space and time.

I note that rather than addressing the actual teaching (now 2000 years strong in Catholics AND Orthodox) you attempt the logical fallacies of putting forth premises that you say were ‘wrong’ once, thereby implying that the Real Presence, existing ‘in olden days’, is also wrong. Logical fail.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yeah, but when they met there, you wouldn’t be there with them.

No but if Jesus was the one who said it he certainly could be!

 

[Jon_S_1]

They also thought the Earth was at the center of the universe, that the Earth was flat, that women were forbidden from speaking in church, that it was OK for priests to be married, etc.

Just because a belief or interpretation has survived since the early days doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct, or that it won’t change in the future.

And Protestants don’t doubt Jesus’ sacrifice. We just think the one sacrifice was enough. No need to relive it over and over again in cracker form.

Do you really believe this?

If so then why should we accept anything the Bible says?

 

[Church_Militant]

Convince yourself. I have a pretty thorough article on why I believe in the Eucharist that began here on CAF many years ago and now resides on my blog. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Arizona_Mike]

1. I have seen people argue that the fact Jesus let people walk away over the “you must eat my flesh” statement without telling them it was just a metaphor is evidence that it was literal. Why couldn’t it be seen as a test of faith? When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he didn’t tell him that he was just kidding until after he was sure Abraham was willing to do it. Maybe Jesus didn’t fix the “misunderstanding” because he wasn’t interested in disciples who wouldn’t follow him no matter what. He then explains it as a symbolic statement to the remaining disciples at the Last Supper when he hands them bread and says “THIS is my body” (i.e. > this is what I was talking about earlier, not actual flesh … but thank you for being willing to eat actual flesh if you had to.)

Quasi-Catholic, in my time as an agnostic I felt it likely at one time that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when referring to the Eucharist. But when I studied the Bible more closely, I noticed that while Christ often spoke in parables, He made it quite clear to his followers when he was speaking the literal truth - he began such statements by beginning the sentence with “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” He was saying, “Truly, Truly, I say to you…” or more colloquially, “I tell you the truth…”

This is an interesting construction, as when “Amen” is used in the Old Testament, it is almost always spoken at the end of a prayer, blessing, statement etc., to indicate agreement. It is also used in the New Testament at the end of doxologies, prayers, etc…except when it is Jesus saying “Amen.” He uses it at the beginning of the statement to preface it and to testify to its truthfulness, and because He has the authority to make a revelation of truth. Jesus is the only person in the Gospels who says Amen, except for characters in parables who are clearly intended to represent Jesus Himself.

So, John 6:53 - 54: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

There is a communicated urgency there that would not be present if Jesus simply wanted us to, you know, think about him while we ate some bread and wine (or grape juice, in some Protestant denominations) at a church meeting. The actual language Christ used for the consumption (in Greek, more like “gnawing” or “chewing”) was so earthy that He clearly was teaching the material, actual nature of the act - not a polite re-enacting of a ritual at a dinner party. That this passage caused some followers to abandon him (and that He did not go after them to correct a misunderstanding), and that this revelation was apparently a truth that Judas could not accept, is also important and a testament to the essential nature of the teaching.

This was understood from early in the Church’s history. As St. John Damascene (675 - 749 A.D.) wrote, “The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood’ but ‘my blood.’”

Or as the great Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor said in a somewhat more earthy tone after the writer Mary McCarthy (who was raised Catholic, but later became an atheist) suggested the Eucharist was only a symbol, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.” She later said she wished she had said more, but then decided, “I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.”

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I was also convinced by how early the records are that the fathers of the early Church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are men who willingly accepted martyrdom for their beliefs, so it is unlikely they promoted an unbiblical belief just so they would have the social prestige of being an administrator for a purely symbolic act. If you just want to have some social status, picking a path that leads to being torn apart by wild animals before a cheering crowd is probably not optimal.

These were often well-educated men, who understood the difference between symbolism and reality, and between metaphor and fact. They were the students of the original apostles, and some knew Christ firsthand. St. Ignatius heard St. John preach and is believed by many in the early Church to have been one of the children whom Christ said should be allowed to remain in his presence. He wrote this circa 80 - 110 A.D.:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

This written shortly before his bloody martyrdom by the Romans.

As St. Ignatius’s letter indicates, their belief in the real presence in the Eucharist led to acts of social justice that seem unbelievably self-sacrificing to us now - the early Christians sometimes sold themselves into slavery to buy the freedom of others, forced their way (unarmed) aboard African slave-ships to free captured slaves (as St. Augustine’s parish did), or stayed behind in Roman pandemics to care for the dying pagans who had earlier cheered the deaths of Christians in the Colosseum, even as the Roman aristocracy (and doctors) fled the cities. Belief in the real presence was not just an add-on part of their theology - it was an essential and non-negotiable belief that allowed them direct communion with God (as it was for St. Paul, who demanded that no one unworthy partake of the Communion - which would seem an unlikely demand for a symbolic act to memorialize a past event) and gave them strength for their mission.

St. Justin Martyr wrote:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

I hope and pray that your path leads you to full communion with the Catholic Church. Participation in the Eucharist is one of the most overwhelmingly powerful experiences I have ever had.

 

[Nita]

The sentence “This is my body” is pretty much exactly the definition of a metaphor – comparing two things without using “like” or “as.” (e.g. “My love is like a rose” = simile, “my love is a rose” = metaphor.) Of course, it’s also the same sentence structure you’d use if you were speaking literally, too. Doesn’t really give you a lot of guidance as to which way he meant it.

I have heard this before – that it’s metaphorical. And it always puzzles me as to what metaphorical meaning those people ascribe to the words. All sorts of questions arise in my mind. Hopefully you can answer at least some of them for me.

If “This is my body which is given for you” is a metaphor, then:
what does the metaphor mean; what point is Jesus trying to get across about His body?

If it’s just a verbal comparison to convey an intellectual concept about His body, then why does He command the apostles to physically eat the bread as part of that teaching? metaphorically what does eating Jesus’ body (physical part of His human nature) mean?

Likewise, " this is my blood of the (new) covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." In what way is wine like Jesus’ blood poured out on the cross and offered up to obtain forgiveness of our sins?

(Mt. 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-24; 1 Cor 11:23-27)

 

[AndyP2010]

So Jesus saying that he is the bread of life, is a metaphor, like him saying he is a door. So where is the half a chapter discourse on the “door of life” in John. Where do the other 3 evangelist have Jesus change a sacred Jewish feast to introduce a new covenant of the door, like he did at passover with the last supper. That is a pretty unique metaphor don’t you think?

 

[petra22]

Just to be a little pedantic, that was the father of the possessed boy in Mark 9.

Yes, you are right about my misquote. Thomas, when he put his hands into the wounds of Jesus said, “My Lord and my God!” That’s the same thing I love to say when the priest elevates the host at consecration at holy mass!
Sorry for the error!

 

[petra22]

Is this the right place to say I love this forum? Where else can we get such an education in our faith? I love the responses to the OP and the banter back and forth. I love the sites people recommend for further study. It just fills me with happiness that people can discuss these important matters of Jesus being truly present in the holy Eucharist. I wish the whole world could join and read and read and read and talk… Thanks to all!

 

[CompSciGuy]

“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”
1 Corinthians 10:16

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 11:27

Note that he isn’t saying they are sinning against the symbol of the body and blood of the Lord, he says they are sinning against the actual body and blood of the Lord. The Catholic interpretation of the Lord’s supper is the most natural one and is the one that was passed down. You ought to be willing to question what you yourself have been taught. You ask why should we believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. There are many who would ask you why believe in the divinity of Christ. Why believe in God at all. Or why not be a Muslim or Jew instead of a Christian. Perhaps you would say that you value the scriptures. But from whence came those scriptures? Who gave them their authority? It is the same authority that teaches the real presence in the Eucharist. So if you would accept the scriptures, or rather a roughly 300-year-old interpretation of them, why would you reject the very Church from whence they came, which itself was instituted by Christ and bears in it all the teachings of Christ, not only by written word but every oral teaching passed down from the apostles? If you remove the authority of the Catholic Church, you are sawing off the branch that you are sitting on. Your faith in the Bible and in Christianity altogether becomes irrational.

 

[Pax]

QuasiCatholic in Christ,

I would like to chime in on how it is that we know that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically about the Eucharist.

Jesus works three important miracles prior to the discourse on the bread of life in John 6. The three miracles are:

–the changing of the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana
–the feeding of the five thousand with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes
–and finally Jesus walks on water. There are no parables or metaphors immediately before or after the discourse on the bread of life.

These three miracles are a preparation for the discourse in John 6 to enable the listeners to believe Jesus words in the discourse. The first two miracles demonstrate what Jesus can do with food, and the third shows what he can do with his body. The connection to food and his body in this series of miracles is no accident as it illustrates the preparation for the discourse. In the discourse itself, we find that Jesus compares giving his body and blood as true food and true drink to the miraculous food of the manna in the desert. The manna was true food and it was a miracle. Likewise, Jesus references another miracle in the discourse in verse 62. When the Jews did not believe Jesus’ promise of the Eucharist, he asked, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” This reference is to his later ascension into heaven. Thus Jesus has compared his promised miracle of the Eucharist to an OT miracle of food and to a future NT miracle of his bodily ascension. Jesus clearly connects food and his body in two miracles within the discourse itself. This is again very indicator of Jesus’ literal intent.

Likewise, Jesus does not speak in parables or figurative language subsequent to the discourse on the bread of life until after there are other mentions of miracles in general and a specific reference to Jesus healing the blind man using his spittle and earth to make a salve of clay to cure the blindness[Jn 9:6]. Once again, Jesus uses common material in a miracle. It isn’t until Chapter 10 that we see any metaphors. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in John 6 and the fact that the discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles and contains references to two miracles within it tells us that he is speaking of a miracle in his promise of giving his body and blood as true food and true drink.

Another important contextual consideration is that John prefaces the discourse on the bread of life[See John 6:4] by mentioning that “the Passover… was at hand” . This is an important clue to us. Jesus is our Paschal lamb and this ties the discourse to the Last Supper.

There is another, subtle and often missed, miracle that should also be mentioned that gives more evidence and insights into the mystery. In John 6:19-21 we read about Jesus walking on the water and the passage reads as follows:

“When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened, but he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.”

The distance they had rowed, prior to Jesus entering the boat, places them about half way to their destination. Once Jesus enters the boat, the boat immediately makes land. This shows Jesus doing something that totally defies the laws of time and space. Likewise, in giving us the Eucharist, Jesus clearly provides us with a miraculous gift that defies the physical laws of time and space. Even though that should be enough about the context being one of “miracles”, there is still another miracle that can be mentioned. This is the future miracle of the resurrection mentioned in John 5:29. The miracles that bracket John 6, and the miracles mentioned within the discourse itself, along with the other scriptural evidence are persuasive in showing that Jesus is not speaking metaphorically. Jesus is, instead, speaking literally about the miracle of the Eucharist.

Furthermore, verse 51 Jesus says;

“and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Jesus tells us that the bread that is true food that he will give us is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross for our salvation. If the bread of life that is true food is Jesus’ flesh that will hang upon the cross, then it must be literal and cannot be metaphorical. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically about giving us his body as true food, then he had to be talking metaphorically about his body being hung upon the cross for our salvation. No one believes the latter and no one should therefore doubt the former. We simply can’t have it both ways.

Another very important point to be made about John 6:53 pertains to the use of the word “life.” Once again the verse says: "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;” The Greek word for “life” used in John 6:53, is “zoen” which means, “divine life of God imparted to us”. There are other Greek words for “life” that John could have chosen, such as “bios” which simply means “life”. The fact that he chose the word that he did, lends great credibility to the literal meaning of this verse without a hint of symbolism.

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper could not be more clear and they coincide with the literal message of John 6. One cannot nuance Jesus’ words “This is my body.”

Likewise, when we read Paul’s observations of what Jesus directly revealed to him we see the same kinds of literal language. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul says the following:

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?

Clearly, the New Covenant Lord’s Supper is celebrated with real bread and real wine. Moreover, this is a participation in the blood of Christ and a participation in the body of Christ. Some translations use the word “communion” in place of the word “participation”, but the thing to notice is the inextricable connection between real food and Jesus’ body and blood. They are both bound together into one thing.

Paul creates a contrast that gives further evidence to the literal meaning of all of what has thus far been said.

In 1 Corinthians 10:18-21 he says:

Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Paul is comparing our Eucharistic table/altar with the altars of the Jews and the pagans. Both make sacrifices that involve blood and food. He points out that food offered to idols isn’t “anything.” Now think about this…the food offered on Jewish altars is “real” food; the food offered on pagan altars is “real” food; and the bread and wine offered on Christian altars is “real” food. That is something that they all have in common, but Paul rightly points out that he is not saying, that food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything. Paul tells us, however, that the bread and wine offered on Christian altars is actually and genuinely “a participation in the blood of Christ…and a participation in the body of Christ.” The food offered to idols and idols themselves are nothing, but that which we offer is something quite special. We offer the body and blood of Christ to the one true God. Because of this, Paul tells us that we cannot participate in offering food to demons upon pagan altars. Pagan altars are real, the food is real(but of no consequence), the idols are real(but of no consequence), and the demons are real and we cannot be partners with demons. None of this is metaphorical. Every detail is real…nothing is metaphorical.

I would also point out that when Jesus finally does get into metaphors in John chapter 10 and refers to himself as the door, the text specifically says the following in verse 6:

This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.

John clearly delineates when he has shifted from the literal to the metaphorical by way of that verse.

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[mikeeh]

The section below is from the Gospel According to Luke. Notice that Jesus speaks the word to his followers but they still do not understand. It’s not until he breaks the bread that he is revealed to them. Scripture gives us the burning desire to follow the Lord, but you cannot fully know the Lord by simply reading the Bible. You must receive the Lord in the form of the Blessed Sacrament.

Luke 24:13-35

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad.g 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth,h who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.i Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

cont. from prior post:

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper could not be more clear and they coincide with the literal message of John 6. One cannot nuance Jesus’ words “This is my body.”

Likewise, when we read Paul’s observations of what Jesus directly revealed to him we see the same kinds of literal language. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul says the following:

Clearly, the New Covenant Lord’s Supper is celebrated with real bread and real wine. Moreover, this is a participation in the blood of Christ and a participation in the body of Christ. Some translations use the word “communion” in place of the word “participation”, but the thing to notice is the inextricable connection between real food and Jesus’ body and blood. They are both bound together into one thing.

Paul creates a contrast that gives further evidence to the literal meaning of all of what has thus far been said.

In 1 Corinthians 10:18-21 he says:

Paul is comparing our Eucharistic table/altar with the altars of the Jews and the pagans. Both make sacrifices that involve blood and food. He points out that food offered to idols isn’t “anything.” Now think about this…the food offered on Jewish altars is “real” food; the food offered on pagan altars is “real” food; and the bread and wine offered on Christian altars is “real” food. That is something that they all have in common, but Paul rightly points out that he is not saying, that food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything. Paul tells us, however, that the bread and wine offered on Christian altars is actually and genuinely “a participation in the blood of Christ…and a participation in the body of Christ.” The food offered to idols and idols themselves are nothing, but that which we offer is something quite special. We offer the body and blood of Christ to the one true God. Because of this, Paul tells us that we cannot participate in offering food to demons upon pagan altars. Pagan altars are real, the food is real(but of no consequence), the idols are real(but of no consequence), and the demons are real and we cannot be partners with demons. None of this is metaphorical. Every detail is real…nothing is metaphorical.

I would also point out that when Jesus finally does get into metaphors in John chapter 10 and refers to himself as the door, the text specifically says the following in verse 6:

John clearly delineates when he has shifted from the literal to the metaphorical by way of that verse.

I hope this helps and God bless.

This is perhaps the best explanation I have ever read defending why John 6 should be read literally and not metaphorically. Well done, truly some great insights!

 

[steve_b]

(I already posted this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but it probably fits better here so I’m re-posting. Thanks!)

Hi folks,

I was raised as a Protestant and am now dating a devout Catholic. I attend a Catholic church with him (since it’s a lot easier to pray as a Protestant at a Catholic church than to pray as a Catholic at a Protestant church), but am currently not planning to convert. There are a few reasons for this, but for now let’s focus on the big one – I cannot accept the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist. Symbolic, sure. Maybe even the presence of the Holy Spirit, OK. But his actually body? No.

When Jesus was face to face with disciples who wanted the rest of the story, they walked away from Him. iow they took Him literally and Jesus didn’t correct them. Jesus only laid it on heavier. John 6:48-70 and notice, Jesus did’t go after them when they left. He didn’t feel a need to change anything. He let them go.
QC:

I’m listing a couple of my thoughts on why this can’t possibly be literal below. If anyone thinks they can shoot them out of the water, please be my guest. But just keep in mind that I’m looking for a better explanation of a literal presence than “because the church says so.”

Remember what Jesus said re: disputes the like of what’s going on here? “if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”. Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus is NOT talking about 2 or 3 joe six paks getting together to make a decision. He’s talking specifically to Peter and the apostles who will decide matters, and teach, and in extension when they die it’s the bishops who they ordain that follow them as successors who make those decisions.
QC:

I’d also appreciate something beyond “all things are possible.” Just because something is possible, doesn’t mean the evidence actually supports it, even when it comes to miracles.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm (institution) Scott Hahn
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha3.htm (Real Presence ) Frank Sheed
QC:

1. This is a two-parter: As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes transubstantiation takes place automatically every time a priest asks for it, but also only if it’s invoked by a Catholic priest (so, for example, even though the Episcopalian Church believes in a real presence, Catholics don’t think Jesus actually shows up when they do it.) So a) Do we really think we can summon Jesus on command? And b) if Jesus asked his believers to do this, and the Episcopalians are also true believers, why wouldn’t he show up for them too?

You realize your argument has it’s roots in protestant systems who regardless of stripe, are all 100% instituted by man, not Divinely instituted as the Catholic Church is. There’s your answer.

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist He also ordained those at the table to do what He does.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8252433&postcount=17
QC:

1. The leftover consecrated host is placed into the tabernacle. So not only do we think Jesus shows up on command, but we also think it’s OK to lock him in a little box and make him wait around until we need him again?

He is there body blood soul and divinity.
QC:

1. Someone in another thread told me that Jesus’ real body is wholly and completely present in each and every Communion wafer. That would require there to be millions of Jesus’ in the world simultaneously. Real human bodies with actual flesh and blood can’t multiply themselves.

You doubt He can multiply Himself? The apostles had no doubt.1 Corinthians 11:26-29

how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE in the bread and wine?

You cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them in bread and wine, unless the bread and wine become what Our Lord says they become

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Good blog post on the subject today on the author John C. Wright’s blog, part of a continuing series on why he chose Catholicism upon his conversion from atheism, as opposed to Protestantism. The Eucharist was a big part of it:

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-point-six-on-communion/#more-8882

An excerpt:

Either the bread and wine is Christ’s body, or it is not. The Protestant says it is not on the quite reasonable grounds that it does not look or smell like it is. The Catholic says it is on the quite reasonable grounds that Christ said it was.

Without deciding the nuances of that fundamental argument, it is clear enough that if a Catholic walks into a Protestant chapel and is offered bread and wine that is quite ordinary in every respect, except as a symbol showing loyalty to Christ, to eat and drink is no more idolatrous and irresponsible than to salute the flag or doff your hat to a lady. It is a gesture of respect and nothing more. Hence it is perfectly reasonable that Protestants allow Catholics to partake in their holy meals.

It is also clear enough that whether or not the Catholic claim is true, the claim being made is that the bread and wine in a Catholic mass is the sacred body and blood of Christ, who is God. Now suppose a Protestant approaches the altar rail for a wafer of this bread.

There are only three possibilities. First, that the bread is Christ but the Protestant thinks it is merely bread, in which case, to eat is blasphemy, because it denies divine worship owed to a divine thing.

Second, that the bread is not Christ, and the Protestant knows it is not Christ, but he nonetheless consumes it in an act of worship, in which case, to eat is idolatry, because it shows divine worship to what is not divine.

The third possibility is that the Protestant thinks it is the body and blood of Christ, in which case he has no business being a Protestant, and should join the Church so he can eat the bread lawfully.

But no matter who was right or wrong about the question of the Real Presence, both parties surely must agree that the Catholics treat the matter of the bread and the wine with much more seriousness and sobriety than the Protestants. Right or wrong, the Protestants say what they are doing is a gesture, nothing more. Right or wrong, the Catholics say what they are doing is a sacrament, as real as childbirth or marriage or death, and touching divinity.

Now, at the time I was a “mere” Christian of no denomination, coming from an atheist background with no previous opinions and no presuppositions. I did not automatically think that adoration of the Host was idolatry, nor did I automatically think the refusing to adore the Host was blasphemy.

What I did think was that God, being omnipotent, could incarnate Himself into bread and wine as easily as He did into flesh and blood, and the one claim was not any more or less absurd or sublime than the other.