Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[Jerry-Jet]

Do people that have heard the teaching of transubstantiation and know the teaching but choose to reject it and not only reject it but to wage war against it

Do those people have a greater chance of going to Hell if indeed the Catholic Church is the true church

And the teaching of transubstantiation is indeed true

and they thereby do die without ever having life in them which is given by Jesus in the sacrament?

wouldn’t a wise man think twice before he’d take such a gamble?

And if he were on a quest for the truth

And if he wasn’t sure if his opinion was true

wouldn’t that person think twice about spending much of the Lord’s precious gift of time in trying to persuade other christian souls of its truth or falsity?

Would a wise person REJECT all the christians who believed the teaching for 1500 years?

Would a wise person be alarmed at the lack of SYMBOLIC believers in the Last Supper throughout all those centuries?

and finally would others be wise to take all that into consideration when they weigh the veracity of that person’s arguments?

Maybe I’m just dumb but I’ll believe the Catholic Church.

the same Church that has never proved the resurrection for me is the same church that I believe tells the story right about the eucharist.

How many people think that I’m dumb for thinking that way?

 

[guanophore]

Was the original passover a miracle? I’m sure you’d agree it was. But the Israelites’ remembrance thereof was not. It was simply a commemoration of the miracle. Likewise, the “Eucharist” is a commemoration of the miracle which saved us from our sins – Christ’s death.

Certainly a highly structured and sacred meal.

Also, you can't simply *assert* that Jesus wasn't speaking figuratively until you make a case to support that.

On the contrary, the plain literal meaning of His words are HIs own assertion, and the burden is to prove He did not mean exactly what He said (like plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand). The beliefs of the early Christians up until today are testimony enough. Have you considered the Orthodox belief? You can be assurred it has not been Romanized! Yet it was received from the same Apostles.

You can reasonably say it was possible that he was speaking literally, though I'd say there's not enough evidence to even support that.

Maybe you are lacking study of the Early Fathers, and the Divine Liturgy.

That one thing be a symbol doesn’t mean that everything is.

agreed

***The bread was indeed meant to be a symbol – a symbol of Christ’s death. We all the time have symbols of real things. Christ’s death was real, and just as in the Old Testament, we have a symbol which commemorates that real event.

---

Ahhh, then we agree that the flesh of Jesus is of avail!

addressed above – to profane the body and blood of the Lord indeed can be said of a symbol, unless you take the term to mean something different than I do (if so, please explain).

Those of Apostolic faiths take it differently.

In fact, all of the terminology you've shown actually can be used of a symbol. While you seem to think all of those texts must be taken literally, you've not responded to my questions that are a necessary result of taking John 6 literally. What prevents them from being a symbol? If one abuses a symbol, why is it not a serious disgrace?

The Paschal Lamb was killed. It was a real death. Jesus, the Pascal Lam was killed, it was his real flesh and blood. You have to remember that all the first Christians were Jews. They are looking at Jesus and listening through their Jewish lenses. To eat the flesh of a person or drink blood of any kind was a scandal. They were scandalized because he was not speaking symbolically.

If I went into your home, picked up a statue of Mary (it’s just a hypothetical), and smashed it into pieces in front of you, I imagine you’d be more offended than if I took a sheet of paper and destroyed it. Why? It’s just a symbol of her, is it not? Yet even if you wouldn’t be, I’m quite sure many would be upset with this behavior.

I would feel sorry for you. However, I would not consider you to be “profaning the body and blood of Mary”. You are not guilty of her actual death in doing what you did. It is rude and inconsiderate, but the representation is not her.

Why? Because symbols represent real things and disrespect of a symbol shows your consideration for the real thing.

Yes, but not the same as actually profaning the thing itself. I am way more offended when people crash planes into the Pentagon and kill citizens than I am when someone burns the American Flag.

 

[guanophore]

My apologies for not addressing all of the posts, but there are some things I need to clear up first.

I am finding this the first thread I have read your posts that seems really sincere.

You’re right, and such assertions are found frequently here.

It is the duty of Catholics to assert the Truths of the Faith, and this is a Catholic Forum.

You say it’s fact, but how do you substantiate that fact. The text says that those who partake of it in an unworthy manner are “guilty of the body and blood of Christ”. What specifically does that mean, and exactly how does this exclude a symbolic interpretation of the passages?

All the passages have to be taken together as a whole, the OT, and the NT, Jn. 6 etc. The only way that these can all make sense together with this one is if it is literal. We substantiate that with the Apostolic Teaching evident in the early fathers and taught in the Apostolic faiths to the present day. It has always been believed.

I never said that was the case. I don’t hold that Jesus is really (physically) present in the bread either,

Why do you suppose that Jesus showed those on the road to Emmaus how they could recognize Him in the breaking of the bread?

If Jesus is not physically present as bread,then he did not physically give himself as life for the world, either. It was His symbolic body on the cross?

and yet I take Paul’s words on the matter quite seriously. Disrespect of something, whether real or symbolic, is still disrespect. I believe this is what Paul meant when he said that we’d be guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

It is a start.

And what exactly is being guilty of that? What does it mean that’s more than an extreme disrespect for something?

This seems to be the big hold-up here, and the largest difference between our understandings.

We crucify the Son of God afresh. Our sins are the nails in HIs hands and feet, the spear in His side.

If you’re not going to address John 6, please don’t make mention as though you’ve established fact. I’ve raised questions, and you should at least respond to these if you want to say that John 6 supports your position.

Consider that Jn. 6 was written by Catholics that believed in the Real Presence. What do you think it meant to them?

Actually, common sense would say that it is bread that is present even after transubstantiation supposedly happens. Yet you dismiss this, and hold on to your faith that common sense is wrong. Kind of contradictory, to claim common sense in one area, and reject it in another on the same doctrine, don’t you think?

When Jesus says it changes, then common sense says it would be wise to take his Word for it.

In a figurative, symbolic way, absolutely. You will notice that they never say anything more than “this is the body of Christ”. They don’t say “this is the actual, physical flesh, even though it looks like bread”.

Why do you think the early Christians were accused of practicing cannabilism?

A further note – if there were so many teachings that were hard to understand (such as John 6), why would the apostles not have asked what on earth Jesus was saying at the last supper? “This is your body? What do you mean? How can your body be the bread if you’re standing right there?”

We don’t know they didn’t. Indeed, that was their modus operandi!

It does seem a rather striking omission from all of the gospels, don’t you think?

No. We only have a small distillation of what happened. We also don’t have record of the other two Passovers that they celebrated. We don’t know what all He had taught them about the Passover.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do people that have heard the teaching of transubstantiation and know the teaching but choose to reject it and not only reject it but to wage war against it

Do those people have a greater chance of going to Hell if indeed the Catholic Church is the true church

And the teaching of transubstantiation is indeed true

and they thereby do die without ever having life in them which is given by Jesus in the sacrament?

wouldn’t a wise man think twice before he’d take such a gamble?
And if he were on a quest for the truth

And if he wasn’t sure if his opinion was true

wouldn’t that person think twice about spending much of the Lord’s precious gift of time in trying to persuade other christian souls of its truth or falsity?

Would a wise person REJECT all the christians who believed the teaching for 1500 years?

Would a wise person be alarmed at the lack of SYMBOLIC believers in the Last Supper throughout all those centuries?

and finally would others be wise to take all that into consideration when they weigh the veracity of that person’s arguments?

Maybe I’m just dumb but I’ll believe the Catholic Church.

the same Church that has never proved the resurrection for me is the same church that I believe tells the story right about the eucharist.

How many people think that I’m dumb for thinking that way?

BINGO! I was wondering when someone would get to a thing that even fundamentalists can understand - PRAGMATISM.

Why do Protestants and other sects go well out of there way to ignore, discount, scorn and utterly reject the PREPONDERANCE of evidence that Jesus has a real presence in the Eucharist? Why not have faith in the many many examples in scripture that state it, suggest it, and make it so very very easy to accept within the profoundly consistent framework of old and new testament teaching and example when the consequence of rejection is spiritual DEATH?

If Martin Luther or Calvin or some other Protestant had said that Christ is present in the Eucharist would their congregation believe their leaders over Jesus or simply reject it because they don’t understand the meaning of the word “is”? How can any rational person demand on one hand “proof” in scripture and when given it say “its not enough” yet embrace the remaining 60% of scripture but miss the forest for the trees? Are some humans made of a different substance than others?

James

 

[JReducation]

I think the weight of an early Christian’s testimony should be considered. Take a look at a simple evening prayer which sheds light on how the early Christians believed on this matter.
NIGHT PRAYER
(Nightime Hymn of Mar (Saint) Ephrem)

O Lord, through the Cross by which you humbled yourself, grant me restful sleep and deliver me from nightmares and disturbances. Give me an angel of light to guard my body, and,** by your living Flesh which I have eaten**, deliver me from hateful feelings.

May the fortress of your mercy shelter my soul, which is your image. May your right hand overshadow my body, which your hands have fashioned. May the fortress of your mercy shelter me like a defending shield, and when my body is silent and asleep, may your power be its guardian. Amen.

Let my sleep be like the perfume of incense ascending before your Greatness.** By the intercession of her who bore you**, let the evil one not approach my bed. By your sacrifice for all, chase away Satan, lest he harm me. Fulfill your promise in me, and by your cross protest my life.

I have always loved this prayer. I just can’t memorize it. This and the Memorare are two of my favorites, neither of which I can ever memorize.

 

[Odell]

Either way, I see nothing here that says anything about there being a mystical transport in time and space. Also bear in mind that the lifespan was longer, and that a great many who had been in Egypt were still alive, so saying that it was the same people is not unreasonable.

read what the early fathers tought

I know quite a few Jews, and none of them believe that it’s anything other than a commemoration of the actual event (I asked).

funny my aunt is a Jew and she knows exactly what im talking about. regardless scriptures says “what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt” (see Exodus 13:8).

that is what God told them to teach them about the passover.

 

[JReducation]

Was the original passover a miracle? I’m sure you’d agree it was. But the Israelites’ remembrance thereof was not. It was simply a commemoration of the miracle. .

Let’s allow a Jew to answer this.

I was born and raised Jewish. I’m a convert to Christianity; therefore, still a Jew as I cannot deny my mother, my heritage nor my culture. My faith evolved and thus I became a Catholic Christian.

Jews do not view the Pesach as a miracle, as there was no miracle that took place during the meal. The miracles were the plagues. The first Pesach was a celebration of God’s saving power through signs (miracles) and wonders.

The primary observances of Pesach are related to the Exodus from Egypt after generations of slavery. This story is told in Exodus, Ch. 1-15. Many of the Pesach observances are instituted in Chs. 12-15.

“And if your son asks you in the future, saying, What are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, that the L-RD our G-d commanded you? You will say to your son, We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt; and the L-RD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. The L-RD gave signs and wonders, great and harmful, against Egypt, against Pharaoh, and against all his household, before our eyes: And he brought us out of there to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised our fathers.” -Deuteronomy 6:20-23

Pesach or Passover is our celebration of freedom from spiritual and literal slavery. That celebration continues to this day. The Pesach is not a symbol, we remember, celebrate and give thanks for freedom from captivity. This we inherited from our fathers and pass on to our sons. The reality continues. We have been freed by the power of God. Pesach is not a repetition nor a memorial, because God’s saving act is not over. It is a continuation.

Is that clearer?

 

[Pax]

I’d very much like to see some evidence to support this as well.

When he fed the masses, the twelve actually saw the people taking the bread, and saw how much was remaining. Did they understand how it happened? No. But they did see evidence of it. It was observable.

Walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, causing the apostles to catch so many fish by moving the net to the other side of the boat…all of these were miraculous, but again, empirically observable.

Jesus died and rose again – could they explain how? No. But they did see it with their own eyes. The same is true for those who were cured of illnesses, blindness, leprosy, and so on.

And yet, a supposedly miraculous event at the last supper is supposed to be the only miracle Jesus performed which had no observable proof of its happening? That seems very unlike Jesus, if scripture is any measure of what he was like.

No doubt. This is not in dispute. I am certainly not saying he cannot do things – rather that he did not. Likewise, the apostles, believing him to be the son of God, wouldn’t believe that he could not do things, but certainly this didn’t stop them from questioning his teachings when they were unclear.

Or figuratively. So long as the intent is clear, there is no need for clarification. Jesus frequently spoke in parable and analogy. Why is there any reason to be confused if this seems to be another parable?
…
…

Not all miracles are observable. Augustine made a great point about the miracle of redemption and God’s grace and gift of faith which brings about each man’s salvation. Augustine said that the miracle of salvation is greater than the miracle of creation itself. The miracle of salvation that the Holy Spirit works within us is not a visible miracle. It is, however, a miracle of faith. Likewise, the miracle of the Eucharist is a miracle that we know and recognize through faith but the visible signs of bread and wine appear to be unchanged. We know by faith that the substance of the bread and wine has changed, just as we know that the inner man has changed through the salvific miracle of regeneration.

 

[Pax]

…
…
Jesus frequently spoke in parable and analogy. Why is there any reason to be confused if this seems to be another parable? Moreover, the very meal they were eating was the passover, a meal symbolic in its very nature – what’s so confusing about symbolism in a symbolic meal?
…
…

I believe that JReducation has already answered this point to some degree, but I will try going at it more directly. When Jesus gave the discourse on the bread of life it was sandwiched in between other miracles. There are no parables in this section of John’s gospel. Likewise, the language is not the language of a parable. The literal language of the discourse has already been touched on, but you still think that it could be a parable. The best way to determine this is to look at a parable in John’s gospel that follows the section containing “signs/miracles.”

The section on miracles ends with Chapter 9. Chapter 10 opens with a parable. This is the first parable in John’s gospel. The parable is as follows:

John 10:1-7

“TRULY, TRULY, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This parable Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

It is important to note that the first parable in John’s gospel is identified as a parable. It is also important to note that the apostles didn’t understand the parable and that Jesus started to repeat it as he went on to explain it to them. All of the language is clearly metaphorical.

In John 15:1-6 there is another clear example of a parable and it reads as follows:

“I AM the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”

The language in this passage is clearly metaphorical and it runs throughout the passage. We have the vine, the vinedresser, the branch, the fruit, the bearing of fruit, the pruning of the vine, the withering of a branch, and finally the burning of the withered branches.

The discourse on the bread of life is not identified by John as a parable and it is in a section of his gospel that is dedicated to signs/miracles. The language in the discourse is not metaphorical and no one that was present thought that it was metaphorical. The language in the discourse is literal and progressively more graphic. The first parable told in John’s gospel starts a new theme in the gospel and it is identified as a parable. Moreover, it clearly reads like a parable. Likewise, the parable of the vine and the branches is a parable and it reads like a parable.

This exegetical evidence should be helpful in seeing that John 6 is not a parable. Jesus speaks literally and he means what he says to be taken literally. Moreover, those that were there took it literally. Jesus wants more for us than we could have otherwise imagined. Which is better… the literal meaning of the Eucharistic words or a symbol? The latter is not part of the discourse and it is clearly inferior to what is promised.

I hope this helps.

 

[PC_Master]

Observable? Did they see HOW he multiplied the loaves? Did they see how He rose from the dead? etc…No I don’t think so, but they sure saw the benefits of those miracles. Just as we see the benefits of the Eucharist.

That’s a faulty analogy – a bit of clever sophistry which seems to ignore my point entirely. With those miracles, they saw tangible, physical results, which cannot be said for the Eucharist. The benefits of those miracles, actually, weren’t “seen” as such. Sure, the multitudes were no longer hungry, but can you really see that?

What is tangible is that the apostles saw all the leftover bread, after everyone had taken a lot, and there were twelve baskets remaining. When Jesus rose from the dead, they saw his resurrected self. When he cured the sick and injured, they saw the healed person, different than they had been before. There was a tangible, real effect that could be observed. This applies to every miracle (that is, acts that were suspensions of reality) performed by Christ…except the supposed transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

To me, it’s like saying that you’ve healed someone’s injury, without any appearance of it actually being healed. It’s not testable in any way. Now, that’s a bit off-topic for this thread except to say one thing – the concept of transubstantiation does not fit with the pattern established by all of Christ’s other miracles.

I’m amazed you can keep up with all the posts at all - let alone respond! Congratulations.
I have to admit I have not read the last two pages of posts; there probably would have been two more pages by the time I finished. So I apologize if someone has already made the same response.

Don’t worry too much. It happens in threads like this – someone challenges Roman Catholic teaching in a credible way, and you’ll doubtless get many responses in defense of the Roman Catholic faith. Sometimes I wish there were less repetition by the same posters, and more evidence being presented, but all in all, it’s pretty good most of the time.

The map comparison is not equivalent or similar. To be similar to your highway/map example, Jesus would have had to take a sketch of Himself with other people, point at His image and say "This is my body.

In other words, it would have to be something whose only purpose and meaning would be to serve as a representation of Jesus’ body.

For it to be a similar example, all that is necessary is a real thing (the real road // Jesus’ sacrifice) and a symbolic representation thereof (the road shown on a map // the last supper). We have both of these. The purpose of the bread and wine was to serve as a representation of Jesus’ body (at least in my view), so the comparison seems fitting. Perhaps you’d explain what I’ve missed, in your opinion?

I intend to check out the gospels for “Is” usages. Without looking, I think they often

1. say “is like a ___”;
2. or in the discourse, comparative words will be used : “as” the branch, “so” you, etc.
3. or Jesus will explain the symbolism ("The field is the world, etc.)

Very true. Such is the case with John 6 – an explanation of the symbolism because the way in which Jesus had stated it was rather literal-sounding.

I’m familiar with the “I am” statements, but they are a little different; Jesus is the subject of the sentence.
Note the difference between saying “I am the vine…” ---- and picking up a physical vine, holding it up and saying “This is Me”.

When Jesus said “I am the vine and you are the branches”, was he not saying that he actually is something, and that we are something, other than what we each are? Of course he is. However, it’s quite obviously ludicrous to think that Jesus actually meant that he was actually a vine. Since it’s not reasonable (within our realm of understanding), but yet was preached to men, it is not unreasonable to look and see if this is yet another time when Jesus is being symbolic about his own nature and importance. The same is true in John 6.

Did he literally mean for the people listening to him right then to cannibalize him? I don’t think so. Had they taken him literally due to a lack of understanding of the symbolism, they might have been very offended at the notion – and indeed many were, even though he interspersed it with symbolism.

Had I heard those words myself, I’d have either taken them figuratively (if I knew Jesus well enough to know his method of speaking), or literally in a sense that would disgust me. The concept of transubstantiation is foreign to the natural mind even now, after centuries of development of the doctrine and centuries of teaching it. Do you really think that devout Jews would at all understand this in a transubstantiational sense?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

It really doesn’t fit. The people didn’t have centuries of theology on the topic. Had they even had the idea that Jesus wasn’t speaking symbolically at the last supper, surely they would have been very obvious to question him about it, and this no doubt would have been recorded in the gospels.

They rose into contention about simple things, like which of them was to be the greatest. Even this simplest of concepts was recorded in fairly full detail. Are we to think that they would have omitted writing about this important, and quite confusing, concept?

The only other option is that they understood it perfectly well and thus found no need to write about it. However, that seems incredibly unlikely, given the lack of theological development on the topic.

I think the burden is on the Protester to disprove it, since Jesus plainly said it was.

Actually, I’d say in John 6 Jesus plainly disproved transubstantiation, so it’d be your burden. See, this is a fun game we can play, throwing around the burden of proof. What remains is that I have raised logically sound points that can explain John 6 (and the last supper passages, and Paul’s writings) in a symbolic way. What I seem to be getting in return is, “Jesus said it, and the church has always believed it, so it’s fact”. You haven’t demonstrated either that Jesus specifically said it, or that it was believed in early church history specifically displacing a symbolic reasoning (however, early church history is outside the intended topic of this thread, and I’d like it to stay that way).

Are you actually arguing that “Jesus explicitly said that the bread and wine were not symbolic of his flesh and blood, but were actually, really his flesh and blood”?

I think what you’re really arguing is that what Jesus said doesn’t contradict a literal interpretation. Whether this is true or false (I believe it to be false), not contradicting something is not necessarily affirming it either.

However, if you’d like to show me the verse where Jesus says “This is not a symbol, as with all my other symbols used throughout my ministry, but is actually, really my body and blood,” I’m all ears. Yes, I know that’s a loaded statement, and I readily admit to it – I’m just making a point. If Jesus didn’t explicitly say it wasn’t symbolic, how do you know it isn’t? (Please restrain your answers to scripture for now. I’ll hopefully get to the ECFs later.)

This is exactly true, and why there is no distinction between the Priest who acts in the Person of Christ, and Jesus, who is the one giving His Body and Blood. He allows the priest to share in His eternal priesthood.

As much as I’d like to know where on earth you find that concept founded in the origins of Christianity, I do not wish to derail this thread. For now I’ll chalk it up to an explanation rooted in Roman Catholic theology that has little bearing on this discourse.

I suppose one could look at it that way, kinda like desecrating the American flag? But it is not the flag itself, but that which it represents that is defamed.

That’s actually a very good example. In fact, many very patriotic individuals would say that “those who burn a flag are in the same camp as those who crashed planes on 9/11”. (That’s almost verbatim from several people I know.)

Think of it this way – they greatly love their country, and so a symbol of it has great importance to them. Though I know they love the USA, I love God more. I think we can say the same for Paul. Thus, disrespect of something intimately representative of his salvatory work would be a very great offense, placing those who disrespect it so in the same group as those who murdered Christ. Paul was a very zealous man for God, so I really don’t think this is a stretch of reasoning.

However, Paul goes on to say that many of them have fallen sick, and some have died, and attributes this to the profanation. Howe does insulting a representaion cause that?

Are we to think that profaning a symbol, something that represents something so important, would be unpunished by God?

If you profane it and it literally is Christ’s body, does that implicitly cause you harm, or is the harm the action of God in punishment for disobedience? If it is a symbol, the same question can be asked. Unless, of course, you’re saying there’s something about the bread/wine that actually keeps you from getting sick. That said, I know many devout Roman Catholics who are sick.

Clearly, the profanity results in sickness as punishment from God. Thus, if it’s a symbol that’s being profaned, the sickness can be just as real, because it’s a punishment for disrespect of him.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

No, he said that the flesh was of no avail understanding His words, because they were spiritual truths. You can’t say his words had nothing to do with flesh, or you also have to say His flesh He gave was of no avail.

He said the “flesh conveys no benefit whatever”. He’s directly contrasting the fleshly (literal) understanding people were trying to place on his teaching with the true intent, the spiritual truth it represents.

It feeds us. There are many instances of people surviving on no food at all but the Eucharist for weeks, months, and in rare cases, even years.

I would seriously doubt the validity of these supposed cases. This seems best suited for another thread. And regardless of this, can you say that everyone who partakes of it receives this? Of course not. At least most Roman Catholics still need to eat, last I checked. Thus, Jesus cannot have been saying that it is food in a physical sense. He wasn’t speaking literally in terms of “food” and “drink” and “never hunger”. Again, more symbolism.

I agree, but in His world, faith in Him = obedience .

I agree that obedience is important, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to my original comment to which you were replying. Also, it has no bearing on this conversation unless you can clearly demonstrate that Jesus taught transubstantiation, which you have not done.

This is a complex answer. To abbreviate, no one who is not in a state of grace should take communion, and no one can be saved unless they are in a state of grace.

That’s not an answer to my question.

Jesus says that those who believe in him will have eternal life (clearly, this is not physical life – another part that can’t be taken literally). Then he says that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life. Which is it? Do we believe on him for salvation, or do we eat his flesh for it? Notice that he never says “Those who believe in me and eat my flesh will have eternal life.” Thus, the only way to resolve this is to either say that there are multiple means of salvation, or to say that both things are referencing the same subject. One must be symbolic of the other. I just don’t see how “believe in me” can be symbolic of “eat my flesh”. Again, if someone should care to explain this, I’d be happy to hear it.

How do you symbolically “gnaw” on Jesus Himself? Why did He use words about masticating food?

Simple. If “eat” is a symbol, then to “gnaw” – what we might call an emphasized form of “eat” – is to emphasize that symbol in the same manner.

I believe you are in error here. I recall that anytime(at least in John) Jesus spoke in a figurative way he clarified these statments. So that lends itself to this…If he was speaking figuratively, why no clarification. I will look for proof of this for you if you wish.

He clarified the figurative statements only when they were called into question. John 6 is one such case, and he clarified the symbolism (that it is a spiritual truth – the flesh is of no benefit at all) in verse 63.

By the time of the last supper, you must consider…

1. This was a clearly symbolic meal which had great significance in representing historical and religious truths – namely the salvatory acts of God while the people were in Egypt.
2. They had already been told about the symbolic nature of Jesus comments on his body and blood in John 6, and so they were no longer confused about the symbolism.

On the contrary, the plain literal meaning of His words are HIs own assertion, and the burden is to prove He did not mean exactly what He said (like plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand).

Well, if you’re assuming that he meant exactly what he said, and don’t think verse 63 is enough to clarify this, first I’d assume that you haven’t read the passage and the surrounding chapters, and would recommend that you do so. However, aside from that, if you’re to take the passage literally, you must believe the following:

1. We must literally eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood to be saved. Thus, Jesus was suggesting he should be cannibalized by his followers.
2. He was (at the time of that “sermon”) literally bread.
3. Those who eat of him will have no hunger or thirst (physically).

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

These are all very literal interpretations. You would dismiss them as not having a proper understanding of Roman Catholic theology, but I would point out that such theological developments had not happened at that time. The concept of transubstantiation would have been incredibly foreign to them, and would have taken much explaining – explaining which is absent from the gospels. Very odd since the authors make note that people had problems with this teaching and left Jesus because of it. It’d seem sensible to record a good explanation of what I’m sure you can admit is a difficult topic to understand.

The beliefs of the early Christians up until today are testimony enough.

If you can establish that they actually believed what you claim, then perhaps. However, a statement that “this is the body and blood of the Lord” is no more definitive than “this is my body”. This, unfortunately is most of what we see in the ECFs on the issue, at least for the first few centuries.

Again, however, the ECFs are another topic for another thread.

Have you considered the Orthodox belief? You can be assurred it has not been Romanized! Yet it was received from the same Apostles.

I’ll be digging into Orthodox belief later on. But I doubt I’d do that here, as there aren’t many who would be great sources of explanation on those beliefs…I think.

Ahhh, then we agree that the flesh of Jesus is of avail!

Actually, what I was saying is that the “real event” – the sacrificial death of Jesus – is of avail, though not really on a physical scale. Its benefits are spiritual and metaphysical.

To eat the flesh of a person or drink blood of any kind was a scandal. They were scandalized because he was not speaking symbolically.

Or perhaps they were simply scandalized because others misunderstood their symbolic beliefs.

However, I would not consider you to be “profaning the body and blood of Mary”. You are not guilty of her actual death in doing what you did. It is rude and inconsiderate, but the representation is not her.

Perhaps I picked a bad example, heh. The American Flag one is better, as there are militantly patriotic individuals to show exactly the kind of reaction Paul had to disrespect of a symbol.

I am finding this the first thread I have read your posts that seems really sincere.

Though I’m saddened that you didn’t see sincerity in the past, I’m glad you see it now.

It is the duty of Catholics to assert the Truths of the Faith, and this is a Catholic Forum.

Asserting something is useless to a non-believer. Wherever you are, unless you’re willing to rationally explain things to the satisfaction of the person asking the questions, you won’t gain converts. Additionally, as I’m not here to convert anyone, but rather to explore my own beliefs, it would seem that “asserting truth” in this thread does nothing of benefit, except perhaps to convince the lurker that doesn’t really question their faith at all.

All the passages have to be taken together as a whole, the OT, and the NT, Jn. 6 etc. The only way that these can all make sense together with this one is if it is literal.

All the passages have to be taken together as a whole – this includes the Old Testament and the New Testament – especially passages like John 6. The only way these can all make sense together is if the meaning is symbolic, not literal.

All right, now that we’ve tossed both of our assertions up against the wall, can we get back to supporting the claims you’ve made with scripture and logic?

I’m sorry if my way of approaching this seems offensive, but you guys act like it makes your position stronger if you close with assertions that your point of view is fact. You clearly believe you’re right. I obviously believe I’m right. What is there to gain by throwing around assertions that focus on generic “everything together supports my position”, rather than specific details?

How does John 6 not only support literalism, but disprove symbolism? (Don’t forget to consider the other statements above from John 6 that don’t make sense if taken literally.)

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

If Jesus is not physically present as bread,then he did not physically give himself as life for the world, either. It was His symbolic body on the cross?

How do you figure? He most certainly died. It’s not as though he said “I died on the cross” and that’s our only evidence. We have eye-witness accounts showing that it happened.

With transubstantiation, we don’t have that. That one thing be a symbol doesn’t mean everything must be.

Consider that Jn. 6 was written by Catholics that believed in the Real Presence. What do you think it meant to them?

Woah there. You’re asserting what is yet to be proved. You assume they were Roman Catholics and that they believed in transubstantiation, and so you assume they interpreted scripture in this way. That’s a backward understanding of history, which starts with current beliefs, and works backward. You need to start at the beginning and work forward!

If the apostles understood Jesus’ meaning to be symbolic, then the gospel author clearly would have written it with that intention (and I believe this was the case). If the apostles understood Jesus’ meaning to be literal, then the same is true. However, you can’t simply assert that the apostles held a certain belief, and then validate your interpretation of scripture thereby. That gets us into a logical circle again.

When Jesus says it changes, then common sense says it would be wise to take his Word for it.

Agreed. But where did he say that it changes?

We don’t know they didn’t. Indeed, that was their modus operandi!

And yet none of this rather important-to-the-faith discourse is recorded in the gospels? That seems really…well, unbelievable actually.

regardless scriptures says “what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt” (see Exodus 13:8).

Yes, they do. God delivered instructions to the then-current generation of Israelites on what they were to say to their children. He didn’t say “and then tell them to tell this to their children with precisely the same wording”. The people to which this was addressed indeed were rescued from Egypt, so saying “me” is quite appropriate. But it would not have been for their children, except to recall scripture, which is actually recounting what God told Moses.

The miracle of salvation that the Holy Spirit works within us is not a visible miracle. It is, however, a miracle of faith.

Unlike the Eucharist, there is no claimed physical change due to this miracle (though I’m not sure that miracle is exactly the right word in this case). For miracles where a physical change is asserted or implied, except for the Eucharist, there actually was observable change. All that’s required to maintain this pattern is to assume that Jesus spoke symbolically about the bread and wine, which is not unreasonable.

We know by faith that the substance of the bread and wine has changed, just as we know that the inner man has changed through the salvific miracle of regeneration.

I see, and where does salvation actually say that I literally change in some physical, non-spiritual way?

Let’s allow a Jew to answer this.

Jews do not view the Pesach as a miracle, as there was no miracle that took place during the meal. The miracles were the plagues. The first Pesach was a celebration of God’s saving power through signs (miracles) and wonders.

Pesach or Passover is our celebration of freedom from spiritual and literal slavery. That celebration continues to this day. The Pesach is not a symbol, we remember, celebrate and give thanks for freedom from captivity. This we inherited from our fathers and pass on to our sons. The reality continues.

This makes a lot of sense. So it would be reasonable to say that you don’t hold that the Passover lamb is in some mystical way the same one that was had in Egypt, yes?

I think that clears it up.

 

[johnnydigit]

It is very interesting to me that in Leviticus, the Israelites are forbidden from eating blood because it contains the life of the animal.

i never realized that about the blood of an animal and the Law. it reinforces the Eucharist even more. where can i learn more about it?

While I admit that such a methodology seems decent on the surface, I don’t think it holds up under scrutiny.

Additionally, I’m looking for something a little more conclusive than that which requires much conjecture to assume a reasoning.

i find it interesting that you don’t have much to say regarding the Passover, the blood, and the lamb, especially since the topic is regarding the Eucharist. i think it is very important when trying to get into deep Christian theology, to be familiar with the Law and Judaism. in fact, some might say it’s necessary and inseparable.

like mentioned earlier regarding separating Scripture from the Catholic Church, it makes as little sense as separating the Passover from the Eucharist…

 

[revelations]

Asserting something is useless to a non-believer. Wherever you are, unless you’re willing to rationally explain things to the satisfaction of the person asking the questions, you won’t gain converts. Additionally, as I’m not here to convert anyone, but rather to explore my own beliefs, it would seem that “asserting truth” in this thread does nothing of benefit, except perhaps to convince the lurker that doesn’t really question their faith at all.

• John 14:6: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*

We are not trying to convert you…that’s the job of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist cannot be rationalized. For those of faith it makes 100% perfect sense. This could easily turn into a 100 pager if we’re not careful. The best way to find out for yourself, if you are truly curious about this whole deal, is to go sit in front of the blessed sacrament with a bible and pray and ask the holy spirit to show you if Jesus is truly there…you might be surprised, i certainly was

To be honest with you, all the standard Catholic apologies for the mystery of the Eucharist have been offered up. There are really no other solid “logical” arguments from scripture that we can offer you. Not even angels comprehend it and they are heavenly beings.

God bless, and good luck in your journey

 

[CentralFLJames]

Unlike the Eucharist, there is no claimed physical change due to this miracle (though I’m not sure that miracle is exactly the right word in this case). For miracles where a physical change is asserted or implied, except for the Eucharist, there actually was observable change. All that’s required to maintain this pattern is to assume that Jesus spoke symbolically about the bread and wine, which is not unreasonable.

James said:
**Why do you insist on a physical criteria at all when as a Christian you know the entire nature of God and the souls that Jesus is trying to save are spiritual and unfathomable except through eyes of faith?

If you are Christian I assume you believe in the spiritual transformation arising from your Baptism? If you can accept that why not the Eucharist? Who says that there must be a visible “change” that must be seen to ratify a miracle? Did a dove descent on us when we all were baptised or did our lives change forever and we were set on a path in life that is centered on God and Christ rather than ourselves. Is that not good enough evidence?

Stepping into the physical realm one can not see certain physical phenomena like “acceleration” or “momentum”. But they are very real and we can certainly see these indirectly from its effects. Doubt that? Swing a piece of string with a weight attached and see what happens when you try to reverse the direction and rotate it the opposite way or let go of the string. Not that we should be so cavalier to experiment on souls but there are plenty of life examples to see what happens to people’s lives when they fall into sin and seperate themselves from God - they crash and burn and their lives fall apart.

These are all very real manifestations in the physical world that one can not point to and say “there it is” - yet we see the effects of each. In the same way we can see the effects of Eucharist as celebrated in the Catholic Church by the many numbers of people who faithfully receive Eucharist and who enter into a peaceful and contemplative state of communion with God. If nothing else one can count the numbers of people who stand in line and bow to the Eucharist and when hearing the priest say “The body of Christ” they say “Amen”. Are you saying these people are seeing things that aren’t there or are not true?
**

I see, and where does salvation actually say that I literally change in some physical, non-spiritual way?

James said:

You don’t recollect the passage in scripture about the vision of Jesus’ transfiguration? You don’t recollect the scriptural passages about “the saved” having their bodies resurrected on the last day in a new and incorruptible form that is impervious to decay and corruption?

Jumping in here to make a few embedded comments in bold.

James

 

[JReducation]

PC

I’m going to assume that you are searching for an answer and that your search is in good faith. You’re not just trying to instigate or aggravate Catholics and Eastern Christians who subscribe to transubstantiation.

I came from the Jewish faith. To embrace this I had to approach this from two sides as the same time, faith and intellect. My faith told me that the God of Israel was also the God of Jesus. However, my intellect also told me that there is no proof of a risen Christ, other than the Gospel writings and what the early Church passed down through oral tradition and other writings.

My faith told me that nothing was impossible for God, for he created all things including an infinite universe that seems to keep expanding. Then, my intellect told me that the story in Genesis about the six days of creation is historically inaccurate. Yet, this is what the Rabbis had taught us since we were children. When I listened to my Christian peers, they had learned the same thing. There was a question in my mind as to who was right and who was wrong, faith or science? Did he create this infinite universe in six days or over millions of years? In the end, I conceded that his power was greater than what I thought.

When I approached this whole idea of the Eucharist being the real body and blood of Jesus, I had problems with that. My Jewish faith said that this was possible, because God has powers that are superior to and independent of the laws of nature. Our people had seen such signs as the parting of the Red Sea, the Feast of Lights (Chanukah), the plagues, and many other signs that cannot be explained by human science. However, my intellect said these made no sense.

I began to read Protestant exegetes, because I knew that most Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation. To my surprise some of the most prominent Protestant exegetes such as Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, and Kahnis concede that a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse in Jn 6: 52-72 is not only unusual but absolutely impossible,

As they explain it, Jesus makes three references to three kinds of food and three periods in Salvation History. The manna, which we received through Moses and nourished our fathers in the desert, was the first event which nourished men’s bodies. The second reference is to the Son of God made flesh through the Incarnation, which nourishes man’s faith, not the body. The third reference is the one that Jesus makes of his flesh and blood to be given at a future time to be eaten and drunk, to nourish the soul.

My intellect tells me that there seems to be a progression here. With each event, God nourishes at a deeper level. As a Jew, I had seen these progressions in the history of Israel. Each time, God revealed more of himself and each revelation was deeper than the one that came before. It was at this point that my faith and intellect became reconciled, because I knew that God had acted thus throughout history.

Then I looked at it from a purely psychological perspective. If in Christ’s mind the manna was a figure of the him, then the bread and wine that he offered must have something more than a figurative meaning, otherwise the prototype would substantially excel what Christ was offering. The manna was real. It would make little sense for Jesus to refer to something that was real and part of Israel’s history to explain something that is symbolic. One does not use reality to support a symbol. What’s the purpose of that?

The final act of faith and intellect was a close look at how John wrote his Gospel. John includes this narrative in the Book of Signs. In the Greek it was called the Endeixis. Endeixis is the Greek word for proof. The Greek work for symbol is symbolo. John did know the difference between a proof and a symbol. I had to concede that if John had wanted to share a symbol he would have called it such and would not have placed this text in this book. He would have placed it some place else or not included it at all. It does not fit in a book of endeixis. On top of that, John ends the book of signs with a statement by Jesus which seems to warrant no argument to anything that he has said in this book. “I say as the Father told me” (Jn 12:50). All of this, I found to be consistent with what our Hebrew prophets had said about the Messiah.

 

[maryj]

That’s a faulty analogy – a bit of clever sophistry which seems to ignore my point entirely. With those miracles, they saw tangible, physical results, which cannot be said for the Eucharist. The benefits of those miracles, actually, weren’t “seen” as such. Sure, the multitudes were no longer hungry, but can you really see that?

Good morning PC, I thought about you during Mass today. I prayed for you. And I thought about what you have stated about actually “seeing” the miracle of the Eucharist. Now I’m fairly certain you will be skeptical of this but give it a read anyhow. Tangible, physical results. God Bless.
miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html

 

[andy120]

…]

And why does becoming more graphic necessitate literalism as opposed to symbolism?

I haven’t had a chance to look over this whole thread but I just wanted to share on point.

The changing of the language (phago to trogo) does indeed make a literal interpretation much more logical.

When John wrote the Gospel by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each word would have been chosen carefully. Why would John have created a distinct change in language if not to emphasize a point? And if you agree with this, we must now decipher what point he was trying to get across.

So what is John’s point? More importantly, what is the Holy Spirit’s point?

There is significance in the change of language, and it makes up just a portion of Scripture that supports transubstantiation.