Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[HailMary]

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him

Christ gave them no explanation. He did not say, “wait, you mis-understood me, I was only speaking figuratively”. They knew, along with everyone else, exactly what He was saying:

If this were figurative, why is it written?

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it.

Whats so hard about figuratively seeing Jesus as the Bread of Life? Whats so different about Jesus being the Vine, or the Light, or the Good Shepard? Why didn’t anyone else leave him there? THINK!

 

[guanophore]

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:

When He was in the Upper Room with the12 just before His crucifixion, He demonstrated, then told them, “do this, in memory of me”. If He wanted to give that authority to anyone else, why didn’t he do it at another time and place? Why not when he fed the thousands?

 

[guanophore]

In verse 60, Jesus had not yet clarified he was teaching a spiritual truth.

Did He ever teach anything else?

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.

If it is so simple, why are you having such a hard time grasping it?

John 6:60-65

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Let me get this straight. You don’t think they disciples left because it was a hard saying. You think they left because they didn’t “get it”?
PC Master;3180335:

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

So, you will go with the Muslims?

John 6:51
51 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."

They say that it is accursed for one to die on a tree, and that is why Jesus did not really die on the cross. He just passed out, and when they took Him down, he revived and went to Arabia to preach. He did not really give his flesh for the life of the world. It was “symbolic” (figurative) flesh.

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

Especially that scrutiny that is “of the flesh, which availeth nothing”. It is not possible to understand divine revelation by way of “scrutiny”. Our human intellect will only take us so far, then we have to make the leap of faith.

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

Well, try this I saw on a bumper sticker. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it”.

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.

Well, then what if you said “behold, I give exti 123 for the life of the world”. This line is Spirit and Life! Hopefully you can see that there is a disconnect there.

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?

Exactly! This time, he did not try to correct their misunderstanding. He let them walk away. Then He turned to the Apostles, and asked “will you also leave?”

Jesus is trying to teach them that He Himself is the Passover Lamb that was pre-figured. Just as they ceremonially consumed the Passover, we are directed to ceremonially consume Him, as He instructed.

 

[JReducation]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION CAN BE FOUND IN JOHANINE THEOLOGY

Of all the Gospels, the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel is the only one that goes into great lengths to discuss the Eucharist. Before anyone threatens to send me to the gallows, please hear me out. If we are to make proper sense of John’s message, we must understand his Gospel. What I’m about to lay out here can be proven historically.

1. John’s Gospel was written about 100 years after the birth of Christ.
2. It was not written by John. There are several chapters in the Gospel that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were several authors involved and that the original may have been shorter. Chapters seem to have been added for theological clarity.
3. There is agreement on the part of biblical scholars that the source of the Gospel was an eye-witness, someone who knew Jesus. Even though the authors were several. The reason for this belief comes in point 4.
4. John’s Gospel is not synoptic. From beginning to end its focus is theological. It does not attempt to give a historical account of Jesus’ life, teachings and work. It attempts to capture Jesus’ divinity, humanity, Messiahship and present the reader with all of the necessary arguments to prove that Jesus is the Word of God who is became flesh and that all things come into existence through him.
5. This Gospel clearly wants to drive home that Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God, the second person of the Trinity and the only Savior.
6. The writers organized this gospel into four parts: a) Prologue, b) Book of Signs, c) Book of Glory and d) Resurrection and appearance.
7. Jesus’ discourse on his body and blood being bread appears in Chapter 6, which is in the Book of Signs.
8. John obviously taught his disciples that one of the Signs of Jesus’ Divinity and Messiahship was that Christ would give his body as bread to be eaten. This was to be a sign of the God-Man, not a symbol, because it appears in the Book of Signs.
9. The Gospel of John is a theological work. In theology, there is a very clear difference between sign and symbol. A sign gives grace. Grace is the life of God. We find this understanding of grace in Luke’s Gospel when the angel tells Mary that she is filled with grace.
10. If the Eucharist is a sign of Christ’s divinity and Messiahship, then it gives grace. If grace is a share in the divine life, it can only be shared by the divine himself. Therefore, the Eucharist must truly be Christ, the divine and pre-existent Word of God who becomes flesh.
11. John’s prologue is clear. The Word becomes flesh; it does not simply appear as flesh. In referring to Christ’s flesh, John does not use metaphor or figurative language.
12. In addition, it would make no sense to include a symbol in a book of signs. This Gospel is written at a very high intellectual level. Such a fundamental mistake as to include a symbol that has no saving power among signs that give grace, jeopardize the credibility of John’s Gospel. His writers and editors would have extracted such a mistake.
13. They included “the bread that I will give is my flesh” (Jn 6, 51) because it was a true sign, not a symbol. They received this from John and his disciples and they believed it.
14. If it is a sign, then it gives grace. To give grace, it must be Christ himself.
15. If it was only a symbol, metaphor, allegory, then it is in the wrong book. If the book is in error, then is it’s divine inspiration credible?
16. If we believe that this Gospel is divinely inspired, we must then accept its organization. We must accept the theology that it teaches, including what it says about the Word of God becoming flesh and offering that flesh for us to eat.
17. If the sign that is promised is that we will receive a bread that is really the body of Chirst.
18. Christ would not give us a dead body that does not give life.
19. And we know that symbols do not give life, but signs do.
20. There are seven signs in the Book of Signs in John’s Gospel and in all seven the author makes sure that we understand that the sign gives life. To give life it must be life.

That, in a nutshell is John’s theology which supports the theology of transubstantiation. One of the signs of Salvation (the Paschal Mystery) is that Jesus will give a bread to eat that is really his flesh, not really bread, regardless of what it looks like. Jesus looked like a first-century Jew, but he was the Eternal Word of God.

 

[ncgolf]

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.

You stop way too early in your analysis. Does this higway 456 actually exist. Is it real enough to drive on. If yes, then the line is representative of something substantial. This thing represented has the properties of road, not some of the properties of road but all the properties of road. If line 456 points to a road that does not exist … something I could drive on … then I am a liar. Your point is only can something real be represented by something that is not the object. Yes, photographs, video, paintings are images that for the most part represent something real. Matter for us conveys reality … it makes something real for us.

But this is not what transubstantiation is … using your example of line representing road 456 … we don’t use a line on paper. When we say this is hwy 456 we are standing on the road itself. There is no representation. In one scenario you trust the line represents the road … the other is the road itself.

Another point you make though a little unseen is the limits of language when tyring to describe what God can do. We are trying to describe things an all powerful, infinite God can do with a finite set of symbols (words). These things like the word “is” are limiting, they cannot convey exactly nor can we convey exactly what is happening. I imagine the word “Transubstantiation” is limiting in itself … it is not the total of what is really happening, but even for the greatest of minds it is the best we can do. It is probably akin to English 101, the basics. Hopefully we all get to graduate school.

 

[PC_Master]

Nita> My apologies for missing your post earlier.

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.

While you can claim that transubstantiation actually did happen in scripture (as you obviously do), what is there to prove it?

1. (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.

A good argument. On the other hand, if you assume it to be figurative, and the actual reality to have been done once for all, there’s no need for priests to be the ones doing it – Jesus is the ultimate high priest, after all.

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

Let me stop and take a moment here to request, since this forum automatically removes nested quotes, that you post any quotes from other sites (which I might be requested to respond to) without quote tags. You might try indenting and italicizing the quotes instead. Thanks for your consideration.

While the illustration given is indeed colorful, it’s not very accurate. What does it mean to profane the body and blood of Christ? Is this not another way of saying that it’s a cause for great offense, because one is insulting that which is represented?

If someone ripped apart and stomped on a picture of a loved one of mine, I probably would be offended. Though it’s not actually the person, it is showing a severe disrespect for them, and that’s the same vein Paul was writing in, I believe.

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.

While he didn’t actually use parables, he clarified in verse 63 that the words he was speaking had nothing to do with the flesh, but were spiritual truths. If he was being literal, would you explain to me in what sense Jesus actually meant that his body was bread?

And since he was speaking literally, what about never being hungry or thirsty again? Even spiritually, I don’t think Roman Catholics hold that the Eucharist accomplishes this, much less figuratively.

No, the overall context seems abundantly clear that he was demonstrating how much more satisfying a belief in him was than the manna in the desert was for the people of Israel.

Further, if he was speaking of the Eucharist, why did he say over and over that belief in him would result in everlasting life? How does that literally equate to the Eucharist?

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.

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

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

***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.

---

Jerry> You create interesting analogies, but ironically, there’s no real substance to them other than “listen to the RCC or you’re satan’s best friend!” I simply don’t have time to go round and round with you on this. Thus, post as much inane banter as you like – if you do happen to contribute something to this discussion other than your blind and unwavering faith, I’ll respond.
Church Militant:

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.

My apologies.

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.

As I 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).

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?

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.

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

I’ll get to the remainder of the posts another time.

 

[Church_Militant]

My apologies.

No problem

As I 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).

One can assert anything one likes, but the problem here is that you do not deal with the scriptural fact that St. Paul does indeed teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord.

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?

If you say so. I will not deal with John 6 since others are doing so as well as I could. Your question asks, “Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?” and I am offering scriptural response to that.

St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians actually is an excellent example of the way the apostles interpreted John 6. St. Paul indicates that they too took those teachings literally, (and the writings of the earliest ECF support that)

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.

No doubt, however this is a faulty analogy because 1. Mary is not now and never has been considered to be really present in any representation like that. and 2. Though I might be offended at your disrespect for Our Lady, I would never even consider you to be guilty of her body and blood since she is not there.

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

No one will contend that symbols do not represent real things, but the fact is that there is no indication in either John 6 nor the passages in 1st Corinthians of any such symbolism. In fact, they are quite clear, both in the English and Greek, as well as Middle Eastern colloquialism as to their meaning.

If St. Paul and the apostles teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord and the 1st & 2nd century believers wrote that they shared that belief then who are modern n-Cs to deny it? (Chapter 7 of Ignatius of Antioch’s epistle is very clear on this. It is also worth noting that Ignatius was a close friend and disciple of the author of John 6, so that his interpretation of it is not ill informed.)

 

[Nita]

Nita>

While you can claim that transubstantiation actually did happen in scripture (as you obviously do), what is there to prove it?
…

The word of Jesus “This (bread He was holding) IS My Body”].
I can’t think of anything more worthy of belief/acceptance as true than the word of Jesus.

Nita

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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

Excellent reference, Doc.

 

[HailMary]

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

Continued…

because that is common sense.

 

[rwoehmke]

If one reads Paul’s letters and writings of the early Church Fathers it becomes difficult to believe that they did not see the consecrated bread and wine as anything other than the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

For example: [1Cor. 11:27 ]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

If they believed it was symbolic, what would be the big deal about eating bread and drinking wine in the state of sin. They obviously did not understand Jesus’ word in John to be a matter of spiritual presence. After all bread is bread and wine is wine no matter what one believes if it is all about spiritual presence. No where else in the New Testament when Jesus talks about being present to his disciples and us after his death does he put it in the context of being present in (adhering in) a physical non-human created object. In John he does just that.

 

[Philthy]

… and whether or not such references actually teach transubstantiation, as opposed to a more figurative, symbolic meaning.

Catholics hold that they teach both - figurative and literal

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 ambiguous - what are we to believe, exactly? That God sent him in the Eucharist or simply that He is sent by God or both?

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?

Or…have you simply made a logical error? I’m afraid you have made a logical error. You are assuming that the promise is to be fulfilled during this lifetime. This assumption is not a necessary one from the text. It could be a promise that is fulfilled when we enter into eternal rest with Jesus. You must be careful not to allow your desire for this dialogue influence your thoughts and result in such false assumptions.

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

Notice how that fits in perfectly with the fact that he is talking about our eternal rest, and not about our time on earth.

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

Well, that is under discussion. It is signifcant that verse 47 is followed up with verse 48 " I am the bread of Life" - this, afterall, is what Jesus is asking them to “believe” - that He is the “bread of life come down from Heaven”. The heart of what we are discussing is this: is there both a figurative and literal interpretation to His identification as the bread of life, or is there only a figurative interpretation?

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.

Not quite. Verse 50 relates an actual event - there is no symbolism:

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, …
but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

Tell me where, exactly, the transition from literal to figurative occurs and tell me how, exactly, you know this. As far as I can objectively and textually see he relates an actual historic event and in the same sentence makes a claim about himself. The only “problem” is that it is a hard claim to believe. That doesnt make it symbolic.
You ignored a significant problem with your “symbolic only” premise - verse 55:
“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Is this conveying a symbolic reality? True food, true drink - is not symbolic food and drink. One thing is certain: this is not a “clearly symbolic passage”, that is simply a biased assessment.

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

Con’d

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?

Probably.
Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?
Absolutely not. There is no necessary relationship between a spiritual truth and a symbolic method of conveying that spiritual truth. A symbolic or a literal method may be used to convey a spiritual truth. The fact that it is spiritual does not mean that it is symbolic.

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?
   No. He could be communicating a spiritual reality in symboic terms. It is you who has proposed the “either literal or symbolic” interpretation paradigm - Catholics maintain both exist simultaneously.

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?
The term “bread from heaven” is spiritual, literal and symbolic.

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.

There is a difference between “the flesh” and Christ’s “flesh”. Obviously Christ’s flesh “benefits” us - its one of the tenets of the Christian faith that God became flesh and through the offer of his body (ie flesh) made atonement for our sins. So your invalid conditional preface to the question “If it is the spirit and not the flesh”…renders the question irrelevent.

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?

This is not correct. This line of thinking led to one of the early heresies which denied that Christ actually became human. God created man and woman and they were very good - body and all.
In short, why can a symbolic meaning not be seen to fit within the text?
In short, it can, but not to the exclusion of a literal one!
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. Really - from whom, exactly, did you recieve John 6 as the inerrant word of God?

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.

Sounds a little arrogant to me - no offense -* IF* there’s a possibility? I would say that the IF is unquestionable. What do the earliest Christians have to say on the subject?

 

[PC_Master]

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

One can assert anything one likes,

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

…but the problem here is that you do not deal with the scriptural fact that St. Paul does indeed teach that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord.

This is one such assertion. 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?

I really don’t see how this must be taken literally. Thus, I need you to clearly explain it, rather than just say it is fact.

No doubt, however this is a faulty analogy because 1. Mary is not now and never has been considered to be really present in any representation like that.

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

Though I might be offended at your disrespect for Our Lady, I would never even consider you to be guilty of her body and blood since she is not there.

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.

…but the fact is that there is no indication in…John 6…of any such symbolism. In fact, they are quite clear, both in the English and Greek, as well as Middle Eastern colloquialism as to their meaning.

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.

The word of Jesus “This (bread He was holding) IS My Body”].
I can’t think of anything more worthy of belief/acceptance as true than the word of Jesus.

As I’ve said, I can say “this is highway X” while pointing at a line on a page or a map. The word “is” (Greek “esti”) can have figurative meanings, and does in scripture. Just check it out and you’ll see.

because that is common sense.

Well, if it’s common sense, perhaps you would help me understand it. Since it’s common, it should be easy to explain, right?

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?

If one reads Paul’s letters and writings of the early Church Fathers it becomes difficult to believe that they did not see the consecrated bread and wine as anything other than the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

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”.

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?”

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

For example: [1Cor. 11:27 ]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

Ah, answerable…that’s an interesting term to use. I wish it helped more fully clarify the meaning of the phrase though.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

If they believed it was symbolic, what would be the big deal about eating bread and drinking wine in the state of sin.

I’m just going to assume that you haven’t really tried to understand my position, and are thus commenting out of ignorance. While I don’t hold this against you (it’s hard to truly understand another’s point of view – I do understand that), I find it disheartening that you won’t even consider another perspective.

Still, let me explain – Even if it’s a symbolic representation, it still holds great significance. It represents the savior who died to save all of humanity from their sins. It’s perhaps the most important spiritual moment of our faith, and it’s represented in this simple recollection. That in itself should be a rather serious offense to disgrace it, an offense worthy of Paul’s language against profaning it.

Second, let’s look at what it’s a continuation of. In Egypt, the Israelites were enslaved. God promised to save them, and demonstrated his might by slaying all the first-born children among the Egyptians. Whom did he spare? Those who had slain a lamb and done with it according to his instructions (spreading the blood accordingly, etc).

God instructed them to remember this by holding the passover meal every year. This wasn’t just some kind of a party. This was serious stuff – commemorating a miracle in accordance with God’s instructions. Can you imagine the offense if someone abused that commemoration? I can only imagine that the reaction would be rather extreme.

Now, the last supper was actually a passover feast. God was preparing to save the world through the sacrifice of a perfect lamb (yes, again, we’re speaking figuratively – Jesus wasn’t actually, physically a lamb), and thus Christ instructed his followers to remember this action, as had been done with the passover feast for so many centuries before, through a symbol.

Profaning the symbol wasn’t just profaning a symbol – it was an outright rejection of God’s explicit command to his people. So yes, I can understand why Paul would have a very severe reaction to misuse thereof.

I really want to clear this issue up before we go on – if (just assume it to be true for a moment) it really is symbolic, and that was Christ’s intent when he spoke of it, does it not make sense that violating this instruction would be very offensive? Does it not make sense that Paul would have been extreme as he was, given not only that it was a symbol, but that it was delivered from God incarnate?

 

[toaslan]

Hi, PC and everybody!

May I point out that, when Jesus means food symbolically, He makes it clear. For example, Jn4:31-34:
31 In the mean time the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat. 32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat, which you know not. 33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Then again in Mt 16:5-12:
And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
10 Nor the seven loaves among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning the bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

They think He means real food. He corrects their misunderstanding immediately and shows that He is using the food references figuratively.

By contrast, in the Eucharistic talk, Jesus says we must eat His flesh in order to have life:
*51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." *
And His hearers hear him literally:
*52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” *

Jesus then repeats, again and again, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood :
*53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. *
And His hearers never stop taking Him literally. None of this, especially the strong v55, sounds like symbolism. It just sounds “hard.”

Jesus tells us what He means by calling Himself “bread,” beginning with
v48 *I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." *) through v58:
His answer is The bread is His own flesh.

He doesn’t mean it symbolically, because:

1. He doesn’t correct anybody’s mistaking the literal for the figurative, as he does elsewhere with food references, so it remains literal.
2. He doesn’t say that His flesh is not food indeed; that it is not to be gnawed/chewed/ingested even as the literal food manna was merely eaten. (You cannot dispose lightly of this verb-choice of Our Lord’s, which choice serves the Catholic understanding of this discourse, and undercuts a protestant view of it.)

The verse used to challenge the Catholic understanding of this teaching, is verse 63 *It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. * This verse does not defeat the literalness of v48-58 for at least 4 reasons, which I can take up next…

(please see Chacon/Burnham on The Eucharist for a fuller presentation of all this)

Continued…

 

[Pax]

PC Master,

Another thing to think about when studying John 6 is all of the stuff that comes ahead of the discourse. The events that precede the discourse on the bread of life are miracles/signs and they are as follows:

–Jesus changes the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.

–Jesus works the miracle of the loaves and fishes and thus feeds the multitudes.

–Jesus then walks on water.

The first two miracles demonstrate what Jesus can do with food. The third miracle shows what he can do with his body. This is important preparation for the discourse on the bread of life.

The apostle also tells us in John 6:4, as a preface to the second and third miracles, that “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.” This is very significant because it is making a connection between the miracles, the discourse on the bread of life, and the Last Supper Passover. Jesus is both literally and figuratively the bread of life.

The Church is described in scripture as the bride of Christ. Marriage feasts are described literally and figuratively in the NT. We have a feast, we come to the Lord’s table, we partake of His precious body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. He is the Passover Lamb. The Passover Lamb must be eaten.

You’ve been given a great deal already that points out the truth of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. Believe it or not, we have yet to explore all of the scriptural indicators that point to this literal truth.

 

[pneuma07]

Hi PCM and everybody,

Let’s see some problems with using 63 to put into a supposedly figurative perspective the whole “bread of life” speach in 48-58.

In 63 the Lord is saying “the flesh”, while in the speach in every single case you have “MY flesh”. Now, we know that the expression “the flesh” is used elsewhere by Jesus to mean mere human thought or our weaknesses. Remember eg “Blessed are you Simon … . For flesh and blood …” in Matthew 16.
(And in every time, for example, “by the flesh” only, we cannot accept that eucharistic bread is His Body )

In the passage you have “my flesh”. The Lord’s own flesh, not “the flesh” of human thought and weakness. It is “His Flesh” ! If we do not forget the centrality of Incarnation we know (differently from the disciples in THAT stage)
that The Word, the Logos, became flesh. So the Lord’s flesh, which is flesh indeed, not figuratively so ( unless we go back to complete docetism and reject Incarnation), is the Word.

Here is why there is no need to get “my flesh” figuratively in John 6:51-58. And why by doing this we’d loose the whole glorious thing, since we’d substitute with a mere figurative flesh (representing mere spoken words ?), nothing less that the real flesh of the Lord , which IS THE Word.

 

[toaslan]

Verse 63 does not defeat the literalness of v48-58 for at least 4 reasons:

1. Jesus’s Eucharistic talk (delivered to the crowd of Jews–v22-25–at Capernaum) ends with v 58 because 59 says
   *These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. * The dialogue of v60-70 occurs later, it is with his closer disciples not the crowd, and it deals with faith, not directly with the Eucharist, though occasioned by the disciples talking about that teaching.
2. “Spirit” is not used anywhere in the Bible to mean “symbolic.” The spiritual is just as real as the material.
3. Vs 63: Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man (“the flesh”) with the spiritual or faith-filled man. Let’s see 1Cor2:14-3:4 for what Christ means by “the flesh.”
   *14 Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
   15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
   16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
   3:1 Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.
   2 I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,
   3 for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, 3 are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
   4 Whenever someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human? *
   Christ says “my flesh” when discussing the Eucharist. He says “*the *flesh” of the carnal man who won’t believe anything beyond senses and reason. As a previous poster noted, no Christian believes that Jesus Christ’s flesh is “of no avail,” for His flesh was the means of our redemption.
4. The unbelieving disciples leave after vs63–it seems they wouldn’t have left at this point if Jesus had assured them He was only speaking symbolically. We should notice that this is the only time recorded in the NT when any of Jesus’ disciples left Him because they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept.

Please excuse me if I am repeating anybody else’s points–I did read through the thread before posting, but it got pretty complicated pretty quickly…