Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[PC_Master]

As it was requested in another thread, I’ve started this to inquire about scriptural references to “the Eucharist”, and whether or not such references actually teach transubstantiation, as opposed to a more figurative, symbolic meaning.

To start with, I’d like to look at John 6, which is frequently cited as being in support of this doctrine. We can certainly expand this to include other passages, but let’s start with John 6.

For clarity – I’m not asking whether the ECFs taught transubstantiation, or whether the RCC teaches it. Nor am I inquiring about what the belief actually is. I also don’t want to hear another round of “we know it’s true because Matthew 16:18 shows us that the RCC won’t fall into error”. Such things are useless to the purpose of this thread, and if that’s all you have to contribute, please go elsewhere. Thanks.

Now, John 6. Jesus had recently performed a miracle, feeding multitudes of people with but five loaves of bread and two fish. He departed, and many came after him, looking to find him.

Jesus then begins to illustrate, not literally, but figuratively (in verses 26-27) that it would be better to stop worrying about physical things, and instead focus on things eternal. when asked what this specifically entails, Jesus explains that the work God asks of us is to believe in the one whom he has sent (Jesus) (verse 29).

The people asked for a miracle, and Jesus continued explaining with the analogy of bread, calling himself the “bread of life”. Those who come to and believe on him shall never hunger or thirst. Seems rather odd, right? I mean, I know I’m hungry now and then, as is every person I’ve ever known. Was Jesus a liar, or was he speaking figuratively, explaining that he can quench the spiritual need we have?

Verse 40 re-emphasizes – those who believe on the son (Jesus) will have everlasting life, and will be raised up at the last day.

There was clearly some confusion as to the “bread of life” analogy, so Jesus explains more (verses 41-45).

In verse 47, again we see that whoever believes on Jesus (this speaks nothing of the Eucharist) will have eternal life.

This continues on, with Jesus explaining in symbolism that those who trust in him shall have eternal life.

Verses 50 through 58 are the ones usually extracted from this clearly symbolic passage to support transubstantiation. But almost as if to preclude this possibility, verse 60 has many questioning the meaning of these words.

In verse 63, Jesus explains…

John 6:63 Amplified
*63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.
*
I have a couple of questions as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage…

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?
2. If we must take the words of eating his flesh in a literal sense, then must we not also believe that Jesus was speaking literally when he said that his body is (or rather, was at that very moment) the bread from heaven? Should we not believe that his body either held the substance of bread, or took the form of bread? If not, why can one bit be meant symbolically and another not?
3. If it is the spirit that benefits, and not the flesh, then what happens to the physical existence of the bread and wine is of no consequence. In fact, all that matters is the spiritual attachment, not what is physically (in our world of reality, as opposed to spiritual reality) happening. Is this not correct?

In short, why can a symbolic meaning not be seen to fit within the text?

Again, if you answer just basically amounts to “the church says so” there’s no use in saying it, and I respectfully request that you go somewhere else (to another thread, etc) to say such things. I already know what the RCC says on the matter, and I do not concede any authority to that organization – therefore its words and decrees have no meaning to me currently. I’m trying to figure out if there’s even a remote possibility that scripture supports transubstantiation at all. If not, I’ll go on to exploring another belief I have. If there is a possibility, I’ll study further.

 

[DrDave]

If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why was it a hard teaching? cf vs60 why did so many feel compelled to leave him over this hard teaching cf vs66? and finally if they left because they misunderstood his symbolic meaning for a literal one (which I think you would admit IS a hard teaching), why after all the times when he told a second parable when it was clear that people hadn’t grasped the first, or took his disciples aside for further clarification, did He just let them go?

Regards Doc

 

[HannahLisa]

DrDave summed up what I have heard from my Catholic friends in regard to this passage supporting transubstantiation.

It is very interesting to me that in Leviticus, the Israelites are forbidden from eating blood because it contains the life of the animal. Also, the Israelites were to eat the Passover lamb, and some of the OT sacrifices were also eaten after being sacrificed. Since Jesus is the Lamb, the ultimate sacrifice, and drinking His Blood is to give us life, one could see those passages as support for transubstantiation.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Yes, this touches on the ECF as well, but it is mostly a scripture study on the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is just term that the council of Trent coined for the miracle that takes place, so, if you want scripture, there it is.

 

[Nita]

Jesus explains that the work God asks of us is to believe in the one whom he has sent (Jesus) (verse 29).

The people asked for a miracle, and Jesus continued explaining with the analogy of bread, calling himself the “bread of life”. Those who come to and believe on him shall never hunger or thirst. Seems rather odd, right? I mean, I know I’m hungry now and then, as is every person I’ve ever known. Was Jesus a liar, or was he speaking figuratively, explaining that he can quench the spiritual need we have?

Verse 40 re-emphasizes – those who believe on the son (Jesus) will have everlasting life, and will be raised up at the last day.

There was clearly some confusion as to the “bread of life” analogy, so Jesus explains more (verses 41-45).

In verse 47, again we see that whoever believes on Jesus (this speaks nothing of the Eucharist) will have eternal life.

This continues on, with Jesus explaining in symbolism that those who trust in him shall have eternal life.

Verses 50 through 58 are the ones usually extracted from this clearly symbolic passage to support transubstantiation. But almost as if to preclude this possibility, verse 60 has many questioning the meaning of these words.

If the only message Jesus was trying to convey was that they were to believe in Him (easy to understand) - why would He insert a symbolic teaching that only served to confuse ALL His listeners about a message that they would otherwise have had no problem understanding? (I say “ALL” because I don’t think the twelve apostles understood it either; they just chose to remain with Him because they trusted Him.)

Nita

 

[Nita]

If Jesus’ only message was that they were to believe in Him (an easy message to understand), why would He insert a symbolism into the message that did nothing to clarify, but instead only served to confuse - confuse to the point of loss of faith in Him and choosing to no longer follow Him.

Nita

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Until the end of time it will only matter if the church says that scripture teaches transubstantiation.

What it says doesn’t contradict scripture but what it teaches will always be as much bigger than scripture

as Jesus’ teachings were bigger than the Old Testament!

If your mind isn’t large enough to comprehend God’s truth as being Bigger than scripture then pray to God that He will enlarge it for you!

 

[Nita]

John 6:63 Amplified
63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.

John 6:63 RSV
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?

His words are of great spiritual significance; they tell us how we are to receive spirit and life for our spirits - by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Believe in Him, in His words. He is not giving Himself (“my flesh”) as physical nourishment for our flesh (“the flesh is of no avail”), but as spiritual nourishment (“spirit and life”) for our spirits/souls.

Why thru His flesh and blood? Because only in Him, our Redeemer, God INCARNATE, is the source of eternal “life” for fallen mankind. With Jesus’ resurrection, His glorified flesh and blood are reunited eternally with His spirit/soul - never again to be separated. If you wish to receive the risen incarnate Son of God right within you, you have to receive Him whole - body, blood, soul and Divinity.

1. If we must take the words of eating his flesh in a literal sense, then must we not also believe that Jesus was speaking literally when he said that his body is (or rather, was at that very moment) the bread from heaven? Should we not believe that his body either held the substance of bread, or took the form of bread? If not, why can one bit be meant symbolically and another not?

He says He is the “true bread from heaven” (vs 32); “bread of God which comes down from heaven” (vs 33, 50); “bread of life” (vs 35, 48); “living bread which came down from heaven”(vs 51). ** This “bread” is obviously not ordinary earthly bread - so there is no need for His body to hold the substance of earthly bread **in order for His words to be true.

Later, at the last supper, He will choose earthly bread to be the material element He will use to transmit this great gift to us. Very appropriate.

1. If it is the spirit that benefits, and not the flesh, then what happens to the physical existence of the bread and wine is of no consequence. In fact, all that matters is the spiritual attachment, not what is physically (in our world of reality, as opposed to spiritual reality) happening. Is this not correct?

I’m not grasping your meaning.
We don’t believe that bread and wine physically exist (substance that is) after they have been consecrated. Altho, it still looks, tastes, etc. like bread, the substance is Jesus, whole and entire.
…

I’m trying to figure out if there’s even a remote possibility that scripture supports transubstantiation at all. If not, I’ll go on to exploring another belief I have. If there is a possibility, I’ll study further.

An interesting exercise for you, if you have the time, would be to temporarily assume Catholic teaching on the Mass and Eucharist is true - and assume you are God. You (God) intend from the very beginning to communicate yourself to mankind exactly as the Church teaches.
How would you explain such a thing to your followers?
How would you prepare beforehand to aid in helping them understand? (Through events and religious rites)

Awesome. You’ll find meaning in the Old Testament beyond anything you’ve known. God is amazing. (We need an “Alleluia, Amen” icon. )

Nita

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I’m not sure if the bible teaches transubstantiation.

I mean, only a priest has the authority to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - and I’m not sure if the bible teaches that. :twocents:

 

[PC_Master]

If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why was it a hard teaching? cf vs60 why did so many feel compelled to leave him over this hard teaching cf vs66? and finally if they left because they misunderstood his symbolic meaning for a literal one (which I think you would admit IS a hard teaching), why after all the times when he told a second parable when it was clear that people hadn’t grasped the first, or took his disciples aside for further clarification, did He just let them go?

You make a good argument, but let’s take a look.

In verse 60, Jesus had not yet clarified he was teaching a spiritual truth. In fact, I would say verse 63 is a response to 60. Verse 64 tells that some will fail to believe and have faith, and that Jesus knew it would be this way from the beginning. 66 is a fulfillment of that.

As John 3 says, some love darkness, even having the light, they’ll run from it, because their deeds are evil, and they don’t want them to be exposed. The possession of the truth, and understanding thereof, doesn’t necessarily make it palletable.

I don’t think 66 (many of the disciples leaving) is because it was a hard teaching. I think 60 showed that it was difficult, and 63 explained that difficulty. The departure in 66 is simply the willfulness of man. Even today, many turn away from the message, despite how simple it can be.

In short, at the time, I think Jesus was more than clear about the symbolic meaning.

It is very interesting to me that in Leviticus, the Israelites are forbidden from eating blood because it contains the life of the animal. Also, the Israelites were to eat the Passover lamb, and some of the OT sacrifices were also eaten after being sacrificed. Since Jesus is the Lamb, the ultimate sacrifice, and drinking His Blood is to give us life, one could see those passages as support for transubstantiation.

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.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Yes, this touches on the ECF as well, but it is mostly a scripture study on the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is just term that the council of Trent coined for the miracle that takes place, so, if you want scripture, there it is.

While I know you’re trying to help, I would appreciate it if you would actually present these arguments yourself. However, let’s take a look.

John 6 I’ve already covered, so we’ll leave that be.

As for the passages concerning Jesus’ words at the last supper, he said “This is my body.”

I would simply point out that this is no different than the following scenario…

*My friend asked me for driving directions. To get to where he was going, he needed to take exit 123 off of highway 456. So, I pulled out a piece of paper and drew a line across it. I pointed at the line and said “This is highway 456.”
*
The story above might continue further, but the point is made. When I said that the line “is” something, I didn’t literally mean that the line actually was the road in question. Rather, I meant that the line represented (was a symbol of) the road in question. We use “is” in English all the time to speak figuratively, and the Greek equivalent can be used in a similar fashion – just check out all the varying uses of the Greek “esti” (G2076) in scripture.

CM> If I missed addressing something in that document, please let me know.

If Jesus’ only message was that they were to believe in Him (an easy message to understand), why would He insert a symbolism into the message that did nothing to clarify, but instead only served to confuse - confuse to the point of loss of faith in Him and choosing to no longer follow Him.

I think the concept of “believing in him” was not strong enough to emphasize the meaning. To figuratively eat of him, to partake of his essence, gives a whole different feeling. I think it was necessary. Besides, why wouldn’t Jesus use symbolism and parables here as he’d done so many other times?

Jerry> I did specifically ask that people refrain from appealing to the authority of the RCC. Please take your comments elsewhere, unless you wish to speak on the intended subject of this thread. Thank you.

 

[Nita]

I’m not sure if the bible teaches transubstantiation.

I mean, only a priest has the authority to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - and I’m not sure if the bible teaches that. :twocents:

I saw (from you I thought) a post with the “Amen” icon. So hunted and found it and was coming back to thank you - and “poof”, your post had disappeared. Thanks anyway.

Regarding transubstantiation. The Bible doesn’t use the word. But Jesus takes bread and over it says “This is My body” - and the bread changes into His body. That is transubstantiation, even tho the word is not used. So one can say that the Bible teaches it.

God bless,
Nita

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I saw (from you I thought) a post with the “Amen” icon. So hunted and found it and was coming back to thank you - and “poof”, your post had disappeared. Thanks anyway.

Yeh, that was me. I deleted it because I thought people wouldn’t understand why I submitted it. People reading this now are probably confused too. Sorry folks… OK, moving on…

Regarding transubstantiation. The Bible doesn’t use the word. But Jesus takes bread and over it says “This is My body” - and the bread changes into His body. That is transubstantiation, even tho the word is not used. So one can say that the Bible teaches it.

God bless,
Nita

Yep - I agree with that. The point I was making is that it would be hard, near impossible, to use scripture to teach that a priest - and only a priest - has the authority to perform transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology?).

 

[Nita]

Yep - I agree with that. The point I was making is that it would be hard, near impossible, to use scripture to teach that a priest - and only a priest - has the authority to perform transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology?).

Not sure about the terminology.

Regarding only a priest:

1. It was only to the apostles that Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19)
2. (Match up bold with bold and underlined with underlined)
   In addition, or rather encompassing the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist, was the institution of the sacrifice of the New Covenant - “…**this is My blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (In Old Covenant it was the blood of animals that was poured out in the religious rites of sacrifice). It was the priests who poured out and/or offered the blood. The offering of sacrifice was recognized as the role of the priest.

Nita

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Thanks, Nita; That’s a fair comment. That deserves an

 

[revelations]

I always like John Salza’s (www.scripturecatholic.com) site.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

Go there, all the scriptural back up you will ever need. And posted below, a good little story he has on his site (and my contribution to the scripture argument):

**1 Corinthians 11:27
** *“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” *
Although Protestant churches teach that the Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ’s body and blood, Paul in this verse sets forth the Catholic teaching that Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist. Paul confirms what Jesus taught in John’s Gospel, chapter 6. If we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of the unthinkable crime of profaning Christ’s body and blood (literally, murdering Christ). This very solemn and powerful teaching drives home the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and leaves little, if any, room for doubt about the Real Presence.

                 An illustration of the application of this verse may be helpful. Some time ago,                      I was debating a Protestant gentleman at work about the Real Presence of Christ                      in the Eucharist. I explained to him that in all three synoptic Gospel accounts                      of the Last Supper, as well as in Saint Paul's teaching which he received                      directly from Christ, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, "This                      is my body." In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, "This is                      my blood." Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Corinthians                      11:21-25. I emphasized that Jesus did not say "This represents my body and                      blood," or "This is a symbol of my body and blood" (even though there were many                      verbs in Aramaic for “represent”). I further explained to him that God does                      not, and cannot, declare something to be without making it so, and challenged                      him to find a Scripture verse to prove me wrong. He could not.                     
                 Instead, the Protestant took down a picture of his wife which he had pinned up                      in his cubicle, gave me the picture, and said, "This is my wife." Then he asked                      me, "But it is not really her, is it?" He thought he had me cold.

                 I first congratulated him on having such a beautiful spouse. I then pretended                      to rip up the picture and, after it fell to the ground, pretended to stomp all                      over it. I made a bit of a scene. He looked at me with an expression of                      surprise and confusion. I then asked him, "Am I now guilty of profaning your                      wife's body and blood?"

                 After quite a pause, he responded, "No." I asked him, "Why not?" His mind was                      obviously reeling, but I don't think he knew where I was going. I jumped in to                      help him by saying, "I'll tell you why, and it's the point you just made.                      Because the picture of your wife is just a symbol of her, and not actually                      her." At this point, he agreed, but was still confused. I then added, "Being                      guilty of profaning your wife's body and blood by ripping up a picture of her                      would be an absolute outrage, because you can't profane a symbol, right?" He                      agreed.

                 I then drove my point home by leaning in close to him and slowly asking, "Then                      why does Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27 declare us to be guilty of profaning                      Christ's body and blood if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? That would be                      an absolutely unjust penalty if the Eucharist were just a symbol, wouldn't it?"                      After another long pause it was obvious that my Protestant brother was at a                      loss for words. All he could do was ask me to give back to him his wife's                      picture and promised me he would read the verse in its proper context and get                      back to me. He never did.

Again, www.scripturecatholic.com should be your first stop.

-revelations

 

[Pax]

…
…
I think the concept of “believing in him” was not strong enough to emphasize the meaning. To figuratively eat of him, to partake of his essence, gives a whole different feeling. I think it was necessary. Besides, why wouldn’t Jesus use symbolism and parables here as he’d done so many other times?
…
…

Jesus could have used symbolism and parables in John 6, but he did not do so. The language Jesus uses is quite literal and graphic. Jesus tells us that his flesh and blood are true food and true drink, and he tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The text starts with the Greek word “phago” which means to eat, and then uses the word “trogo” which is much more graphic and means to gnaw, to chew and to eat.

Here is the sequence in John 6 for phago and trogo…i.e. the transition to stronger language for the word “eat.”

1. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.[ate/phago]
2. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.[eat/phago]
3. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."[eats/phago]
4. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[eat/phago]
5. 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;[eat/phago]
6. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.[eats/trogo]
7. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
8. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.[eats/trogo]
9. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.[eats/trogo]
10. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." [eats/trogo]

As far as the term symbol or symbolic is concerned I would say that it is important to note that there is a significant difference between a symbol and the thing that it represents. Jesus did not speak figuratively and He did not indicate that the bread and wine would be symbols. He does compare the bread of the Eucharist in verse 49 with the manna in the desert. Please note that the manna was real food. The manna is a prefiguring of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the greater miracle just as it is the greater miracle compared to the ascension which is mentioned in verse 62. Since the Eucharist is a greater miracle than both the manna and the ascension it cannot be a symbol. There is nothing miraculous in something that is only a symbol.

It is also important to note that in verse 51 Jesus says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” If the bread Jesus speaks of is merely symbolic than so is his flesh that hung upon the cross for the life of the world. No Christian would make that particular claim against Jesus body which hung upon the cross, and Jesus tells us that it is that very flesh which we are to eat as the bread that came down from heaven. This is the Eucharist.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

PC Master: there is no teaching outside the church.

What the scripture teaches outside of what the Catholic Church teaches is as meaningless as division by zero.

No self respecting Mathematician teaches the meaning of division by zero–no self respecting follower of Christ contemplates the meaning of scripture apart from what the Catholic Church teaches.

and it doesn’t matter whether you like that or not!

Truth is truth!

What’s the point of trying to teach anything meaningful to someone who already will embrace the meaninglessness of the notion of scripture apart from the Catholic Church’s teaching?

I guess Satan would be fascinated by such meaningless exercises!

See it would be different if anyone in the entire universe even had the slightest doubt that maybe just maybe that you had an open mind large enough to admit the possibility that Catholic teaching is true.

If what I’m saying is wrong then please forgive me and enlighten me as to the instances here where you have been taught Catholic teaching and have changed your open mind and have accepted it?

Or maybe you could tell us how your view of Jesus and the Bread and wine has “Developed” since childhood?

Is it possible for your understanding to develop or did you completely understand the 6th chapter of John the day you first read it?

The reason the question is quite pertinent is if you expect us to indulge your question of what the scripture teaches absent what the Catholic Church teaches then we should similiarily expect you to teach us what the scriptures say about transubstantiation absent of what any Protestant would ever teach about transubstantiation!

The exercise is really quite silly and meaningless without any authorities that can be agreed upon to help us understand such a thing.

Take away the authorities and you would have each of our own opinions.

and the bottom line is that the question without authorities and our own opinions about whether the scriptures actually teach transubstantiation is equally meaningless and cannnot be Proven–whatever “Proven” means.

Tell me something: When a dog chases his tail–eventually even to the dog it gets old!

But Satan never tires of people chasing after their tail like a dog.

What scripture actually teaches about transubstantiation apart from the Catholic Church’s authority has about as much meaning as a dog chasing after his tail!

Dogs sometimes chase their tails.

The meaning of that experience to them is about the same as someone who cannot fathom what substantiality means!

 

[Church_Militant]

While I know you’re trying to help, I would appreciate it if you would actually present these arguments yourself. However, let’s take a look.

John 6 I’ve already covered, so we’ll leave that be.

As for the passages concerning Jesus’ words at the last supper, he said "This is

my body."

I would simply point out that this is no different than the following scenario…

*My friend asked me for driving directions. To get to where he was going, he needed to take exit 123 off of highway 456. So, I pulled out a piece of paper and drew a line across it. I pointed at the line and said “This is highway 456.”
*
The story above might continue further, but the point is made. When I said that the line “is” something, I didn’t literally mean that the line actually was the road in question. Rather, I meant that the line represented (was a symbol of) the road in question. We use “is” in English all the time to speak figuratively, and the Greek equivalent can be used in a similar fashion – just check out all the varying uses of the Greek “esti” (G2076) in scripture.

CM> If I missed addressing something in that document, please let me know.Actually, those are my own arguments, since that is my blog and it’s the initial post of a thread of that same title here at CAF. You can also find it by going to my profile and clicking on “find all threads by” and scrolling through til you find it.

I also believe that you erred when you presented your analogy as I refute the symbolic presence argument directly from scripture in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30 where St. Paul makes it very plain that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of the Lord.

I’ll make it easy on you tho and restate what I said to illustrate this.

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, 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? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

You cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them, and that is not what St. Paul is teaching here.

 

[guanophore]

I've started this to inquire about scriptural references to "the Eucharist", and whether or not such references actually teach transubstantiation, as opposed to a more figurative, symbolic meaning.

The concept of “transubstantiation” is a Western formulation, and is not a word found in scripture, thought he concept is. I challenge you to take into account the Eastern understanding of Eucharist as well, which also affirms the Real Presence, but not the concept of transubstantiation.

I’d like to look at John 6, which is frequently cited as being in support of this doctrine. We can certainly expand this to include other passages, but let’s start with John 6.

Now, John 6. Jesus had recently performed a miracle, feeding multitudes of people with but five loaves of bread and two fish. He departed, and many came after him, looking to find him.

Jesus then begins to illustrate, not literally, but figuratively (in verses 26-27) that it would be better to stop worrying about physical things, and instead focus on things eternal. when asked what this specifically entails, Jesus explains that the work God asks of us is to believe in the one whom he has sent (Jesus) (verse 29).

How do you find this figurative, and not literal?

The people asked for a miracle, and Jesus continued explaining with the analogy of bread, calling himself the “bread of life”. Those who come to and believe on him shall never hunger or thirst. Seems rather odd, right? I mean, I know I’m hungry now and then, as is every person I’ve ever known. Was Jesus a liar, or was he speaking figuratively, explaining that he can quench the spiritual need we have?

His meaning is both literal and figurative. You are what you eat! As we consume Him, we become more like Him. His flesh is food indeed.

Verse 40 re-emphasizes – those who believe on the son (Jesus) will have everlasting life, and will be raised up at the last day.

And we know that “believe” also means “obey”, so when He tells us to eat His Body and Drink His blood, if we are beleiving,we will obey.

There was clearly some confusion as to the “bread of life” analogy, so Jesus explains more (verses 41-45).

In verse 47, again we see that whoever believes on Jesus (this speaks nothing of the Eucharist) will have eternal life.

You are making an erroneous assumption here. The Last Supper had not yet occurred, where He gave his flesh and blood in the sacrament. Naturally, people were confused. But one must keep in mind that this scripture was written by, for, and about a community that believed in the Real Presence. It would be impossible to separate it’s meaning from theri faith and practice.

This continues on, with Jesus explaining in symbolism that those who trust in him shall have eternal life.

Trust=obedience

Verses 50 through 58 are the ones usually extracted from this clearly symbolic passage

Here you are again imposing your assumption that it is figurative into the passage. The passage nowhere indicates that it is figurative.

But almost as if to preclude this possibility, verse 60 has many questioning the meaning of these words.

 

[guanophore]

John 6:63 Amplified
*63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.
*

The disciples are trying to understand what he is saying with their intellect, (the flesh) when it can only be understood spiritually, since it is a spritual mystery.

I have a couple of questions as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage…

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?

This is not just “Roman” but an interpretation of the whole Church. A sacrament is something that effectuates what it symbolizes. The fact that it is symbolic does not confine it to the realm of “sign”. It is both. It cannot be understood by the flesh (human mind).

1. If we must take the words of eating his flesh in a literal sense, then must we not also believe that Jesus was speaking literally when he said that his body is (or rather, was at that very moment) the bread from heaven?

I think so, yes.

Should we not believe that his body either held the substance of bread, or took the form of bread? If not, why can one bit be meant symbolically and another not?

He is the “manna” that came down from heaven. He must be referring to his own flesh because that is what He gave for the life of the world. Otherwise, He gave only “symbolic” flesh on the cross. .:nope: :nope:

:3) If it is the spirit that benefits, and not the flesh, then what happens to the physical existence of the bread and wine is of no consequence.

When He mentions the flesh being of no benefit, He is saying that they cannot, by way of human intellect, get His point. It requires spiritual discernment.

14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14-15

In fact, all that matters is the spiritual attachment, not what is physically (in our world of reality, as opposed to spiritual reality) happening. Is this not correct?

I think not. God created a tangible world, with tangible beings to populate it. He could have made us all spirits, like the angels, without bodies. I agree with you that the spritual world is primary, but if the physical were not important then Jesus would not have had to physically give His body on the cross.

In short, why can a symbolic meaning not be seen to fit within the text?

I think it does, certainly, but the symbol is infused with the reality as well. Just as Jesus is the “image” of the father. He is not just an appearance, but the actual incarnation of what He represents.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15

I already know what the RCC says on the matter, and I do not concede any authority to that organization – therefore its words and decrees have no meaning to me currently.

Therein lies your chief difficulty!

I’m trying to figure out if there’s even a remote possibility that scripture supports transubstantiation at all. If not, I’ll go on to exploring another belief I have. If there is a possibility, I’ll study further.

Again, I commend to you the Eastern Orthodox understanding.​