Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[HailMary]

I remember when we once discussed the Institution of the Sacrament of Reconciliation you asked me.

                 Originally Posted by **PC Master**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2992150#post2992150)                 
             *Prove to me that the priest indeed has such authority.*

I then replied:

Originally Posted by PC Master forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I would ask you: prove to me that the Apostles can heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. What would your response be?

It seems to me that, in the literal sense, the sense the human author intended, you either have a hard time dealing with the face value of a verse, or you are trying to jump into the mystical, or you see the Catholic interpretation and immediately go on the defense: i don’t know.

Here is a principle of interpretation:
**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

PCM, I’ve asked you this before and never got an answer:

What would Jesus have to have said to you to make you believe in the Holy Eucharist Catholic and Orthodox do: the Real Presence?

 

[Odell]

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.)

can you please show me where Jesus says “dont walk away I meant it symbolicly as with all my other symbols threw my ministry that you understood and never walked away!”

than Im all ears

As much as I’d like to know where on earth you find that concept founded in the origins of Christianity,

Can you show me where on earth you figure that he was speaking symbolicly founded in the origins of Christianity?

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).

“He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).

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.

and we are not derailing this is how the early fathers interprited scripture. It is you who has only 500 years of your interpritation history and it is serioulsy flawed.

 

[Odell]

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?

**And a Jew has spoken **:clapping:

like to hear his responce to this:shrug:

 

[pneuma07]

It’s no different than when Jesus used the analogy of being the bread that came down from heaven. Did he mean he was really bread? Nope. He’s just symbolically representing it to explain to the people.

So you’re saying that not only would the twelve have not thought that the bread was bread (and not Jesus actual body), but that they would have thought it perfectly acceptable that the bread actually, literally was his body? I think that’s a stretch to say that they would have denied their own senses, and assumed that Jesus was speaking literally, even when he’d said so many things previously in a figurative way.

Indeed, if Jesus were saying it so literally, I would have expected questions from the twelve. I mean, at this point, they didn’t even yet understand the importance of service, as opposed to leadership. They were fearful when Jesus was executed. No, these men were not suddenly full of understanding in what Jesus was saying, if it was so literal. (They also did not yet have the guidance of the holy spirit.)
It just doesn’t fit.
.

Dear PCM,

Paragraph 1. Are you so sure ? I guess you are showing here the conclusion itself of the thread as part of the argument, stating that “the bread I will give you is my flesh” is figurative. Of course I believe Jesus is fulfilling every day His promise. He IS bread, because will give ( now gives) His flesh appearing as bread. It just does fit. But I agree we have to avoid repeating statements, and look at helpful insights

Paragraph 2. What I suggest, is that, differently from any other situation with anybody else, in that situation it was not so obvious for the Twelve that Jesus saying “this is my body”, means “this bread is bread”. This would be the obvious impression for us, in every other case. If I told you “this bread is my body”, you could consider that a coded message or an expression of a laughable lunatic. Most certainly not that the bread IS my body. But we’re speaking about Jesus and His Apostles at the last Supper here.
Let’s forget then “normality”, if we can. We’re speaking about an extraordinary and “unbelieveble” message, which could be delivered and received in extraordinary circumstances only.

And is there anything “normal”, in the eternal Word made flesh ? Yet we are speaking about that, and you accept Jesus is that ( I suppose). Never, never forget Incarnation.
Yet, since you do not consider it acceptable that this flesh , in his turn, can be given as bread, can become bread
( Logos → Flesh “accepted”, “Flesh” → “not acceptable” ) you assume the Twelve could not in any case deny their own senses
on Jesus’ words, or , at least, obviously not in that particular solemn Supper.
My question is: why was that “obviously” impossible to accept,
ie to be considered impossible for Jesus according to the Twelve ?
Had they experienced precise limits of His power ? Or had they experienced breath taking perfomances ? They had seen dead people coming back to life, hadn’t they ? Peter, John and James had lived( and certainly told the others about that) the Lord’s Transfiguration. They had accepted Jesus as at least the nearest being to God ever existed. At this point they “obviously” reject the possibility that telling them solemnly “this bread is my body”, he’s telling just that.

Paragraph 3 For all the spiritual growth they would later experience, they had lived alongside the Lord for a long time, living unique experiences.
As for the absence of recorded questions about the message, it could go both ways. They do not ask: “Do you really mean that ?”, yet do not ask " What do you mean Lord, since obviously you don’t mean what you’re saying" either. Consider that rejecting the litteral sense, they had to understand what the real ( different)meaning was. A non-litteral understanding would lead to questions.

What we know is that thay immediately perceived the overwhelming importance of the message. How do we know ?

The last chapter in Luke, 24, tells us about Jesus appearing the day of His Resurrection to two disciples, outsdide the Eleven.

*Then beginning with Moses …
…
while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. *

They had not recognized the Lord explaining scriptures. As he broke the bread “their eyes were opened”.
We’re the day of resurrection. The Eleven had taught about Jesus breaking the bread in the Upper Room just the day of His Passion or the day after ! And this teaching was so clear, so underlined, that this was how the two disciples immediately recognized the Lord. Does this absolute and immediate centrality speak for a purely symbolic understanding by the Apostles ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

My thoughts:

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

The New Testament Writers

In addition to the dramatic episode recorded in John 6, the New Testament records several other passages regarding the body and blood of Jesus. Writing from the mid to late first century (anywhere from 25 to 75 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus), Matthew, Mark, Luke and the Apostle Paul all recorded their versions of the events known as the Last Supper. But before looking at these passages, let’s consider one last point concerning the beloved disciple of Jesus, the Apostle John.

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

Matthew – 90-100 A.D.

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28

Mark – 70-90 A.D.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Mk 14:22-24

Luke – 50-60 A.D.

And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Lk 22:19-20

Note that not one of these writers has Jesus say, “This represents my body; this represents my blood.” With nearly half a century or more to reflect on the true meaning of Jesus’ teaching, they infallibly recorded the words of Jesus just as they were spoken – they wrote, “This is”. It would be another 1500 years before someone would proclaim, “This is not.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Apostle Paul

One of the greatest Jewish theologians, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus. Renamed Paul, he became the most prolific of the New Testament writers and a tireless evangelist. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in and unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Co 11:23-29

Paul was not one of the original Apostles nor was he an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus (as far as we know). But we are certain that he was not present in the upper room when Jesus shared his last supper with the Twelve. As he states in the passage above, he received the words, “this is my body, etc” directly from the Lord himself. Elsewhere he states, “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” Paul acknowledges that he had received “great revelations” from the Lord, and, of course, the Church discerned that his writings are the infallible word of God. As a result, we should be pay close heed when Paul warns “anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Would there be need for any admonishment of this type if the bread and wine were mere symbols?

After considering the verses discussed above, it seems clear what the New Testament authors understood Jesus to be saying when he spoke of his flesh and blood as real food and drink. However, some Protestants argue that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and that this was one of those occasions. Does this argument hold up to scrutiny in the light of scripture?

The Bible tells us that Jesus did speak in parables to the crowds that followed him and that he later clarified the true meaning of his words privately for his disciples. For example, in Lk 8:9-10 we read, “His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables…” and Mark 4:10 tells us, “When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables” and again in Mark 4:34 we find “when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.”

Without a doubt, if Jesus had meant for his words on his body and blood to be understood symbolically, he would have explained this to the Twelve when they were alone – especially after what must have been the demoralizing departure of so many who were his followers and their friends. Further, had Jesus given the Twelve private instruction on the symbolic meaning of his flesh and blood later that evening or the next day, then surely the authors of the gospels would have revealed this fact just as they provided explanations of other parables. But this did not happen. Jesus did not clarify this teaching privately for his closest disciples because he had not been using a parable when he spoke.

Finally, since the New Testament itself was not officially recognized as scripture until the late in the fourth century, we should examine the writings of the Early Church Fathers to learn what the Church actually believed and taught its converts regarding the body and blood of Jesus in those first centuries.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Philthy]

Hi PC -
I’m hoping to move this thread in a slightly different direction but before doing so I thought I would comment on the following…

Jesus says that those who believe in him will have eternal life… Then he says that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life. Which is it?

It is both

Do we believe on him for salvation, or do we eat his flesh for it?

Again, both. Its like asking, “Do we eat food or drink water to live?” We do both, and each time we do them we add life.

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.

Consider this statement: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” Does this mean that “belief and baptism” are “the same”? Well, in a sense, yes - they are all acts of faith, and as such are all salvific. So is repentance, confession, forgiveness of others, etc - they are all acts of faith, multiple means of participating in the one eternal life of which we have access to by virtue of Christs finished work on the cross.

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.

This is where I would like to transition the thread a little. You have been given a number of excellent posts which support the validity and historicity of a literal interpretation of John 6 (in addition to the symbolism), but proof is, technically, impossible for either position - yours or Catholics. All that is “proven” is that each side has some degree of appeal and we simply argue back and forth. Here is what I would like to propose: could you please explain how bread is in any way symbolic of faith in Christ or in his Crucifixion or anything as you understand it? I dont get that symbolism at all. I guess what I am proposing - as proof of a literal interpretation - is that there is no symbolic analogy to bread that has any meaning and therefore we must look for something different. I understand the “I am the Vine” and the “I am the Door” and all the other symbolic representations that Christ offers. I dont get the relationship between “This is my body” and any particular attribute of Christ. Its sort of like the Empty Cross vs Crucifix debate - how does an empty cross better represent the fact that Christ is risen when Christ didnt rise from the Cross and all Crosses are empty at some point. In the same way, I dont get the whole “bread of life” analogy. Why dont you present your understanding of the value of the symbolism of Christ to a piece of bread? Perhaps this will be fruitful

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Actually, I’ve said quite a bit on it already, but I’m trying to keep from going too far off-topic.

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

I agree that you cannot separate Passover and Christ’s reinstitution thereof. As for the “Catholic Church” and scripture – rather what should be said is that you cannot separate the early church from scripture, a church which is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church of today.

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

Would you mind explaining to me why my location matters, if the scripture and prayer are the same?

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.

Noted. I got the feeling I was getting to that point.

God bless, and good luck in your journey

Thanks. I hope wishing the same to you is not presumptuous (I mean, I hope you don’t feel you’ve arrived at the final destination yet).

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

I don’t wish to be offensive, but I barely have enough time to keep up with these posts as it is. It’s even more difficult when you embed your comments inside a quote tag. Please do not do this – I can’t take the time to respond to such quotes.

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.

That’s a good assumption. After all, if that’s not my goal, I think there’s very little point in you responding to me at all.

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.

While the understanding of how this happened is beyond my understanding, I do have eye-witness accounts that say it actually happened. There’s at least some evidence to support the claim.

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.

Actually, I believe there is no contradiction between the scientific record and the Biblical creation account found in Genesis. However, that’s best left for another thread. Let’s just say that reality (from my perspective) doesn’t contradict this, and though there’s not an eye-witness account, a careful study of the facts does support both the scientific record (and some of its conclusions) and the creation account of Genesis.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

And yet, in each of these other events, along with every miracle performed by Christ, there were tangible results that could be observed, and were observed directly. Only the Eucharist doesn’t fit this model.

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.

Would you mind providing links to these?

Regardless – that a Protestant agrees with the Roman Catholic stance doesn’t necessarily make that stance right.

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?

Isn’t that the entire point of a symbol – to use something real and tangible to show the meaning of something which is spiritual or figurative? The vine and vine-dresser are real, tangible examples (though they are generic), speaking of a spiritual truth. Likewise, Jesus used the manna (because it was the example presented by the people – it was not of his own choosing) as an example of a spiritual truth.

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…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.

And what part is it that you suggest is more fitting for symbolism? Remember that John himself did not “publish” his work titled into separate books like that – at least not that I’m aware of. Such labellings are mostly the attempt of scholars and theologians to make organized sense of the writings, and should be taken as an outside commentary on the source, not as part of the source itself.

To use an external source to determine whether or not something is fitting in the gospel seems…rather ridiculous, actually. This would be no better than using Origen’s commentary on Matthew as if it were an authoritative source as to the author’s meaning.

There’s more to respond to, but I don’t presently have the time. I’ll get back to this later.

 

[LilyM]

PC Master - sounds like you might be interested in reading up on the many Eucharistic Miracles that have taken place over the centuries - miracles where the Eucharistic host and cup have turned into real human flesh and blood. Try www.therealpresence.org.

These are at least as well-verified as the parting of the Red Sea, the miracle of Chanukah or indeed most of Christ’s own miracles.

The earliest recorded of these miracles seems to have been at Lanciano in Italy in the 700s. Interestingly enough, it actually occured during a Mass offered by a priest who said he had been doubting the Real and transubstantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - hardly sounds like someone with a vested interest in having it confirmed positively!

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… 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?

Thanks, JReducation, for showing me that; That was well worded.

 

[Nita]

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). … Perhaps you’d explain what I’ve missed, in your opinion?

The Last Supper and Jesus sacrifice are not part of the sentence “This is My body” so I’m not sure why you’ve inserted them.
My reason for saying they were not similar situations is because the normal and only meaning of a highway line on a map is to designate the highway; whereas the normal meaning of bread is something totally different from designating a human body.

However, the use of “is” in “This is highway X” can be examined independently and just the usage be compared. However, I don’t think you want to do that since it would support a literal interpretation of “is”. Reasoning:

By definition a road map is lines on paper (or other) that designate specific roads. That is the only purpose and meaning of those lines. So that “line” literally “is” Highway X on that map - it’s the only meaning it has.

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.

Jesus does not explain in verse 63 that His words are symbolic; He does not say that His body and blood are symbolic of spirit and life. His words take interpretation. You interpret them differently than Catholicism.

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.

That the vine/branch designation is meant symbolically is shown in the body of teaching that follows the statement (vs 4 "AS the branch cannot…neither can you; …he is cast for AS a branch…)

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 ones who turned away did know Jesus well enough to know his method of speaking, they were His disciples. And because they knew His method of speaking (which includes the many instances of symbolic speaking) they recognized this was not like His symbolic teaching.

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?

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, …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. However, that seems incredibly unlikely, given the lack of theological development on the topic.

I, of course, opt for your last sentence. They understood it perfectly well - that the bread and wine had become Jesus’ body and blood. As long as people accepted and believed Jesus’ words, no huge theological development was required. Which is why it (the more technical/theological/philosophical explanations) didn’t occur until much later in Church history. For 1000 years the real presence of Jesus was just accepted. All of the theological teaching on transubstantiation is just to uphold the simple truth of Jesus’ words - “This is My body”/“blood”.

As to the apostles questioning Jesus at the time of John 6 and/or at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper - I’m not sure why they didn’t. I know at another time when something difficult (Our Lord’s death) was revealed to them, Scripture says they were afraid to question Him (Mk 9:32). Of course, there’s always the possibility they did question Him but the episode did not get recorded in Scripture.

I think the reason there is not more written by the NT writers is that they knew Our Lord’s words were meant exactly as spoken. If Jesus’ words were not meant to be understood literally, then I would have expected teaching to be given by them that stating those proclamations were only meant to be understood symbolically. I think the very absence of such teaching supports the position of accepting Jesus’ words literally.

God bless,
Nita

 

[CentralFLJames]

My thoughts:
Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their "proof text" points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh "counts for nothing".
Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Great use of scripture, reason and logic to show the truth from yet another angle. I’d say we have pretty much flayed ( ) this topic to death. Anyone after hearing all this who is still inclined to want to deny the truth can only do so by maliciously stubborn and wilful pride and not without eternal consequence if persisting in that condition.

Given the preponderance of testimony, analysis and scriptural basis (and not yet even mention the profound deposit of faith found in the early church father’s writings) I still don’t understand how even a person predisposed with the character disposition of a doubting Thomas, could not in the face of of the eternal graces and merits offered in the Eucharist be disinclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. Even a doubting Thomas should naturally want to at least insist seeing and tasting for himself.

( Psalm 34:8) *O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him! *

What is there to lose except disbelief and false private interpretation of scripture?

James

 

[Nita]

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.

Thank you very much for that info JReducation

Nita

 

[Nita]

In regards to John 6, we just read the printed word. I often think that if we saw Our Lord’s face, His eyes, His physical movements, and above all the tone of His voice, His emphasis on words, etc. - we would probably understand why those disciples who left never once understood His words as symbolic.

Nita

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don't wish to be offensive, but I barely have enough time to keep up with these posts as it is. It's even more difficult when you embed your comments inside a quote tag. Please do not do this -- I can't take the time to respond to such quotes.

OK Fine. I’ll break it out again separately here since you have a tendency to pick and chose when you want to apply fundamentalism (literal), objective, subjective and faith based interpretation of scripture.

To Wit:
PC Master:

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.

Why do you insist on a physical criteria at all when as a Christian you know that the entire nature of God and the souls that Jesus is trying to save are spiritual and unfathomable physically 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 without seeing anything but wet hair why can’t you accept in the same faith the transubstantiation of the Eucharist? Both are internal changes with nothing to see physically. Just who says that there must be a visible “change” that must be seen to ratify a miracle? Did a dove descend 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?
PC Master:

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

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?

Again - why are you so physically fixated on “seeing” things when most everything in the Bible is about Spiritual matters? You would make even a person from Missouri (The Show Me State) wince in this stubborn insistence.

James

 

[utunumsint]

Great use of scripture, reason and logic to show the truth from yet another angle. I’d say we have pretty much flayed ( ) this topic to death. Anyone after hearing all this who is still inclined to want to deny the truth can only do so by maliciously stubborn and wilful pride and not without eternal consequence if persisting in that condition.

Given the preponderance of testimony, analysis and scriptural basis (and not yet even mention the profound deposit of faith found in the early church father’s writings) I still don’t understand how even a person predisposed with the character disposition of a doubting Thomas, could not in the face of of the eternal graces and merits offered in the Eucharist be disinclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. Even a doubting Thomas should naturally want to at least insist seeing and tasting for himself.

( Psalm 34:8) *O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him! *

What is there to lose except disbelief and false private interpretation of scripture?

James

No matter how good our arguments on behalf of the truth, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes the truth apparent and converts the heart. And perhaps, for the Holy Spirit’s own reasons and purposes, the Holy Spirit wishes to keep certain hearts hardened to the truth…at least for a while. Perhaps to draw out more fruit in the processes.

My two cents.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JReducation]

PC

You left out the most important part of my statement in your response. You left out the fact that John was writing about endeixis, proofs of Jesus’ divinity, not symbols.

You keep insisting that the reference to the Eucharist was symbolic. But how do you explain John’s mistake? His entire thread is endeixis not symbolo, then his slips symbolo in the middle of endeixis. If you are right, then John’s book must be removed from the Bible, because it is in error. He calls a symbol a proof. The two are not the same.

Remember high school geometry. You made you statement using algebra. These are symbols. On the other side of the statement, you justified it with a proof. If the proofs are also symbolic, then you’re justifying a symbol with another symbol.

For example:

**Red = Symbol Blue = Proof

<a + <b = 90o Given
<a and <b are complimentary Complimentary angles equal 90o**

**Then there are Euclid’s axioms, such as

1. Things that are alike or coincide with one another are equal to one another or
2. The whole or sum is greater than the sum of the parts.

Definition of Axioms: a statement taken to be true without proof. Axioms cannot be proven or debated. They are what they are.**

This was John’s world and culture. His entire gospel is steeped in Greek thinking and logic. If you are right, then he made a grave error.

If John made a grave error and confused a symbol with a sign, are there other errors in his Gospel?

Is Jesus really the Logos? Logos was also a Greek concept that John applied to Jesus. But we cannot see pre-existence in Jesus. Nor can we see him as the same Word that God used to created the universe. How do we know that Jesus is truly the Word (Logos)? Is that symbollic too? Then the world was not created through Jesus and Jesus was not with God from the beginning. Or God did not create through his Word. Maybe Genesis is wrong and God is not the divine creator or as the Greek’s called it, the Logos. Because we have no physical evidence that Jesus is the Word or that he was present from the beginning. We only have John’s Prologue to show for it.

Either the Eucharist is a proof (endeixis) that Jesus can override the laws of nature and becomes available as bread and wine or it’s a symbol and John made a mistake in his explanation.

If John made a mistake, then should his gospel remain among the canonical books of the New Testament?

John was a mess. Maybe I should have remained a Jew, at least the Jews have the Ten Commandments. There are no debates about that. Would you suggest that I revert to my Jewish faith?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here is a condensation of many of the scriptural as well as many of the early church father’s references on The Eucharist. EVERY ONE of these supports a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even the most skeptical person when presented with this information must look back thousands of years at all the ancient scripture extending from the Old Testament and must be impressed. One must go out of their way to not believe.

Why would God go through all the trouble of laying in the progressive pattern of revelation about acceptable sacrifice that was integral with Jewish History if He really wanted in the end to teach only a lesson about a symbol? Everything in history supports the Christ and Eucharist. Scripture is full to the brim with accounts of “bread and wine”, “manna from heaven”, “word becomes flesh”, “The Pascal Lamb”, sacrifice for atonement, the counter-example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his Son Isaac, and all the other references to Christ’s passion both old and new.

How can anyone calling themselves “Christian” think that God went through all this trouble to just to get to a symbol? Of course He didn’t! We already know from Cain and Able that some forms of worship to God are not acceptable. Catholic worship is acceptable to God because we offer up to God the very same thing Jesus offered to God. We give to God His own son’s Divinity and He returns to us eternal life and abundant grace and keeps us in communion with Him. It’s really both that simple and that profound.

The only thing academically remaining to discuss are the topics of transubstantiation vs consubstantiation.

Here is the list: ALL FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND FIT FOR SPIRITUAL CONSUMPTION.

Genesis 14:18. The first mention of a priest offering “bread and wine.” This (along with the other Old Testament references) prefigures the Eucharist. See Psalm 110:1-4.

Exodus 12:5-11. Explains the Passover, which is key to understanding the Eucharist.

Exodus 16:4-35. Manna from heaven prefigures the Eucharist.

Micah 5:3-4. A prophecy concerning Christ that specifically notes he will “feed his flock” - note that this ties into Jesus telling Peter to “feed My sheep” as well.

John 2:1-11. Jesus turns water into wine, another prefiguring of the Eucharist.

John 6:4-10. Jesus multiplies bread and feeds the people. Note that He uses His apostles to offer the bread/food.

John 6:43-68. A key passage where Jesus calls Himself the “bread of life” and demands we eat him literally (the word “eat” gets stronger each time he says it and literally means “gnaw”). He also loses many of His disciples who cannot accept the teaching.

Luke 22:19-20, Matt 26:26-29, and Mark 14:22-25. The passage recited in the mass, which says “This is My body” etc.

Luke 24:29-31. They don’t recognize Jesus until He celebrates the Eucharist with them.

Acts 2:41-42. Notice that they dedicate themselves “to the breaking of bread.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-27. Paul explains the reality of the Eucharist and points out that those who accept unworthily become sick and some die. Very clear.

1 Corinthians 10:15-21. The cup is a “participation” in “the blood of Christ” and the bread is a “participation” in the “body of Christ.”

Hebrews 9:11-14. The blood of Jesus “purifies your conscience”

Revelation 5:6. Description of the slain Lamb of God, which points to the Passover and Eucharistic sacrifice.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans. c. 110 A.D. - 7, 3 (54a). He desires “the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ”.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians. c. 110 A.D. - 3, 2 (56). There is “one Flesh . . . and one cup” - refres to them as the Eucharist.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. - 6, 2 (64). Chastises those who don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ.

[continued]

James