Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[CentralFLJames]

[continuation from above: List of Eucharist references]

St. Justin the Martyr First Apology. c. 148 A.D. - 65 (128). Explains clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ, literally. A detailed quote.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 4, 18, 4 (234). The bread is no longer bread but Eucharist - “the Body of the Lord.” Long explanation of transubstantiation and how it affects the receiving believer.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 5, 2, 2 (249). Another long explanation of the purpose of the Eucharist and the reality. Says it “is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Tertullian The Resurrection of the Dead. c. 208 A.D. - 8, 2 (362). Shows the importance of the Eucharist to us and says “the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God.”

Tertullian The Crown. c. 211 A.D. - 3, 2 (367). Notes: “We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread fall on the ground.”

St. Hippolytus of Rome The Apostolic Tradition. c. 215 A.D. - 21 (394i). This is a detailed explanation of how to baptize new Christians and afterward how they are to receive the Eucharist. Points out that “they who believe are nourished like little children” on “the very flesh of Christ.”

St. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor of Children. c. 202 A.D. - 2, 2, 19, 4 (410). Explains that the Eucharist is spiritual and actual; also notes that both are present in the Eucharist.

Origen Homilies on Exodus. c. 244 A.D. - Hom. 13, 3 (490). Notes those who worry about one particle falling to the ground and that they should worry about this.

St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 4 (707). Explains the Last Supper and the reality of the Eucharist. Notes “if anyone despise it or treat it with ignominy . . . he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His body.”

St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 6 (708). The disciples at the Last Supper “knew that they had eaten of Christ’s body.” An excellent explanation of the reality of the Eucharist.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 3 (845). Points out that we are “sharers of the divine nature” through His Body “in the figure of bread.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 6 (846). Warns you to not mistake the Eucharist for bread and wine, “for they are . . . the Body and Blood of Christ.”

James

 

[Nita]

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.

In all fairness and charity to PCmaster, the posts have been coming very hot and heavy. My guess is he’s chosen to bypass those points that would require more time and research and respond to the ones he has a quick answers for. It’s probably the only way to keep on top of the situation. Maybe when the activity slows down, he can take the time to research, ponder, etc. and come back with a response to the unanswered issues.

Nita

 

[guanophore]

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

What was fleshly about their understanding was a lack of faith. Spiritual truths can only be understood by those who receive the Spirit. They were afraid of His teaching, so they could not trust that the fullness of the teaching would be revealed in time. They were striving with human intellect (flesh) to understand it, but could not. The Apostles could not understand it either, nor did they, until the Last Supper. However, they trusted that He had the words of eternal life, and that the meaning would be made clear in time.

I would seriously doubt the validity of these supposed cases.

Why? Do you not believe in miracles?

And regardless of this, can you say that everyone who partakes of it receives this?

Each person receives what they need.

Jesus cannot have been saying that it is food in a physical sense. He wasn’t speaking literally in terms of “food” and “drink” and “never hunger”. Again, more symbolism.

You are experiencing shallow understanding of symbolism, Are you saying Jesus is not the Paschal Lamb?

Also, it has no bearing on this conversation unless you can clearly demonstrate that Jesus taught transubstantiation, which you have not done.

I think I conceded this point in my first reply, where I said that “transubstantiation” is a Western scholastic attempt to understand and explain a deep mystery of Divine origin. I am not at all sure it is useful or necessary to try to label it with such language. I prefer the Orthodox approach to leaving it as a mystery.

That’s not an answer to my question.

Jesus said that if we ate of His Body and drank His Blood, we would have life within us. What is it about that you do not understand? Or, is it more a case of not accepting? Are you like the disciples who were trying to wrap your brain around an eternal mystery? That would be an effort of the flesh, would it not?

Jesus says that those who believe in him will have eternal life (clearly, this is not physical life – another part that can’t be taken literally).

This is not true. Jesus said that there will be a resurrection of the physical body.

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

It is both. One cannot eat the Body and Drink the Blood without faith. Both faith and obedience are required to enter into life.

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

Both! Actually, I would say the two are one and the same.

Notice that he never says "Those who believe in me ***and*** eat my flesh will have eternal life."

Well, you don’t know what all He said, because you were not there. We do have a distillation of what was said. He also said the He who believes and is baptized will be saved. All the verses must be taken together as a whole in order to understand the meaning of His words. Those who take the Body and Blood without faith profane it. Profaning Christ does not commend one to eternal life, would you not agree?

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.

I think it might be more accruate to say that there are many factors involved in salvation. Faith and obedience are primary.

 

[guanophore]

One must be symbolic of the other. I just don’t see how “believe in me” can be symbolic of “eat my flesh”. Again, if someone should care to explain this, I’d be happy to hear it.

Perhaps you really are making progress?

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

Can you explain how gnawing on the symbol makes one more one with it?

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

No divine mystery can be understood or appreciated solely with human intellect. The flesh of man falls short of Divine Revelation.

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

1. We must literally eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood to be saved. Thus, Jesus was suggesting he should be cannibalized by his followers.

Yes.

1. He was (at the time of that “sermon”) literally bread.

Yes

3) Those who eat of him will have no hunger or thirst (physically).

Yes

 

[Jordan_Francis]

He was (at the time of that “sermon”) literally bread.

Certainly Jesus was not literally bread. If you read the passages closely it becomes obvious, Jesus having used the word “eat” in connection with his flesh 9 times, that the link between bread and Jesus, the reason that bread can function as a symbol of Christ, is primarily that both are consumed.

Again, it is obvious in John 6 that Jesus is like bread in the sense that both his flesh and bread are actually eaten. It is consumption which provides the basis for their identification with one another.

Now what Protestants do is turn consumption into a symbol, something the text does not indicate. When Jesus talks about being consumed, they say, he is speaking symbolically. **Yet it is precisely the symbol of the bread that Jesus is using to indicate the reality of the consumption of his flesh. **

 

[guanophore]

These are all very literal interpretations. You would dismiss them as not having a proper understanding of Roman Catholic theology, but I would point out that such theological developments had not happened at that time. The concept of transubstantiation would have been incredibly foreign to them, and would have taken much explaining – explaining which is absent from the gospels.

I think not. The word, certainly, and Western philosophy underpinning it, yes, but not the concept. All the early Christians believed this, as is evident by the writings and the Traditions that have been handed down. Again, go ask the Orthodox where they got the idea that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. You will find that it is not a “Roman” idea, but one that was handed on by the Apostles.

We do see some explaining in scripture, the first in Paul’s letters, and more in John 6. This is many decades after the Church had been celebrating eucharist. The scripture is infused with the belief of the Church.

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

Yes, but this is not ALL we see. We also see the Liturgy and the catechism, both handed down through Sacred Tradition. If you are saying that somehow the believers went astray, and stopped believing what the apostles taught, when and how did this happen?

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

Perhaps. Scripture reflects that the believers practiced, as do the early writings. The Apostles believed that Jesus gave them His own Blood and Flesh in the form of bread and wine, and this is what they passed on to their disciples, and so on until this present day.

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

There are some good Orthodox fora, but I commend to you the Eastern Catholicism forum here. You will find that Eastern Catholics have the same beliefs, but they don’t base them on Western /Roman language and philosophy.

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

Really?! Jesus could have given us the same benefit by using a spiritual or metaphysical body?

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

I am sure there was misunderstanding but it is very significant that cannibalism was one of them. It is indicative of what was communicated about the practices of the day. “They drown their infants and eat their god”.

Asserting something is useless to a non-believer. Wherever you are, unless you’re willing to rationally explain things to the satisfaction of the person asking the questions, you won’t gain converts.

Well, clearly not, since you have said the forum was full of assertions, yet you are still here!

Additionally, as I’m not here to convert anyone, but rather to explore my own beliefs, it would seem that “asserting truth” in this thread does nothing of benefit, except perhaps to convince the lurker that doesn’t really question their faith at all.

Personally, I frequently answer posts primarily for the lurkers. If you notice, they are about 10 times the number of posters.

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

Well, you did kinda cut off our feet with your posting restrictions. Now the ECF are out, as well. No Church teaching, no testimony from non Latin Catholics. Since scripture is only one part of the testimony, it is hard to see the big picture without including the other witnesses to the Truth.

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

I think it makes sense when they are taken both ways at the same time.

 

[guanophore]

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

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

Perhaps you do not have eye-witness accounts because you have rejected all of them. I just read where you doubted that eucharist could actually be real food. Such scepticism? Why? Is it too Catholic? You are hearing eye-witness accounts from the Catholics on this forum,and they carry no weight either. How did we all become deceived? Another question. What would be the goal of the deception. Let’s just say, for the sake of discussion, that the devil led the early Christians astray, starting with the NT writers, and that still today, Catholics erroneously believe literally in the words of Jesus in John 6. How does this serve the evil one instead of God? I mean, if Catholics are off track, it must be detracting from real kingdom living, right?

Woah there. You’re asserting what is yet to be proved. You assume they were Roman Catholics and that they believed in transubstantiation, and so you assume they interpreted scripture in this way.

No, I do not. The Roman Rite did not exist for centuries later. The language of transubstantiation did not come along to more centuries after that. What I am saying is that the first Christians took Jesus literally at what He said.

That’s a backward understanding of history, which starts with current beliefs, and works backward. You need to start at the beginning and work forward!

I can do that too, but since you have disallowed any evidence…

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

You are right, but I don’t use my interpretation of scripture to validate, but the consistent practice of the Apostolic Churches. We know this belief was held because that is what was practiced.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I found some more scripture references with some well thought out commentary that I want to add in here:

Old Testament: General Observations

Ludwig Ott

“Prefigures of the Eucharist are the Tree of Life in Paradise, the sacrifices of Abraham and Melchisedech, the manna in the desert, the Shew-bread in the Temple, and the various
Sacrifices of the Old Covenant, especially that of the Paschal Lamb.”

(5:370)

Genesis 14:18 / Psalm 110:4

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

A. Karl Keating

“The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in bread and wine - that he would use those elements. Melchisedech, the king of Salem and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Gen 14:18). Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest `according to the order of Melchisedech’, that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We must, then, look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass fits the bill.”

(3:253)

B. Ludwig Ott

“Melchisedech brought out bread and wine . . . in order to offer a sacrifice to God, as was customary in the celebrations of victory . . . This interpretation is affirmed by the express
indication of Melchisedech’s priesthood. The specific priestly activity is sacrifice. Christ, according to the Messianic prophecy of Ps 110:4, which the Epistle to the Hebrews (5:6; 7:1 et
seq.) confirms, is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, that is, He is a King and Priest at the same time . . . In the sacrifice of Melchisedech the Fathers see the archetype of
the Eucharistic sacrifice.”

(5:403)

1. Isaiah 66:18,21

18 . . . I will gather all nations and tongues . . .
21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

A. Ludwig Ott

“Isaiah proclaims a priesthood from among the Gentiles for the Messianic era; . . . A special priestly status is, according to the Old Testament view, not conceivable without sacrifice.”

(5:404)

1. Malachi 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a
pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

A. Ludwig Ott

“God is here proclaiming the abolition of the Jewish cult of sacrifice and forecasting a new, clean sacrifice . . . The universality of the veneration of God and of the new sacrifice which
is proclaimed . . . points clearly to the Messianic era (cf. Ps 22:27-31; Is 49:6). The sacrifice of the Cross cannot be meant, as this was offered in one place only. The prophecy is
fulfilled in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which, . . . in view of the sacrificial gift and of the primary sacrificing priest, is a clean oblation.”

(5:403)

B. Karl Keating

“Note that he speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices, but one that is offered everywhere . . . Only the Mass meets the requirements.”

(3:254)

James

=========
references:

1. Adam, Karl, The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Justin McCann, rev. ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1954 (orig. 1924).
2. Schreck, Alan, Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1984.
3. Keating, Karl, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, SanFrancisco: Ignatius, 1988.
4. McKenzie, John L., The Roman Catholic Church, GardenCity, NY: Doubleday Image, 1969.
5. Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974.
6. Hardon, John A., The Catholic Catechism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975.
7. Hardon, John A., Pocket Catholic Dictionary, New York: Doubleday Image, 1980.
8. Howard, Thomas, Evangelical is Not Enough, Nashville: Nelson, 1984.
9. Sheed, Frank J., Theology For Beginners, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1957.
10. Scott, Martin, Things Catholics are Asked About, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1927.

 

[guanophore]

Agreed. But where did he say that it changes?

He said it with His actions. When He “took bread” and after “took the cup, saying…” It began bread and wine, then He said “This is the cup of my blood”. It became the Body and Blood when He took them an pronounced it to be so. Why is this so hard to believe, when we find it so easy to believe that He could say “let their be light, an there was light”.

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

The Apostles never intended to document all that they were taught. Yet Jn. 6 makes it clear that this practice is essential to eternal life. And Paul states:

1 Cor 11:23-25

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 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.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

Ever wonder how Paul received this from the Lord? It wasn’t included in their little chat on the way to Damascus…

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.

Not unreasonable at all. But it is restrictive to limit it to that. How is it the Apostles misunderstood what He meant? Why didn’t He correct them? He gave them revelations about everything else!

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

When we see HIm, we shall be like Him, for we shall see HIm as He really is. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed.

 

[JReducation]

DOES ANYONE ELSE UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT AND HOW JOHN IS WRITING?

PC

You seem to be stuck on the word symbol, my friend.

I have posted numerous times that John did not use the word symbol. He used the word proof.

When he referred to the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus he (John) presented this teaching to his disciples as proof that Jesus was lord over all, including nature.

Also, you forget that I also pointed out that John says that Jesus is the Logos. This was not a Judeo word. It was a Greek word. It meant the “spoken word” or “meaning”.

There is no way to prove that Jesus is the meaning of life. Much less that he was present when God created life, but John also alleges that this is true.

In fact, John is bold enough to state in his prologue that Jesus is the Word, that he was with God and that he was God before the creation of time.

I know that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox accept this as literal truth, even when there is not way of proving it.

They also accept this as having come through divine revelation, as John does not say that he learned this from Jesus. In fact, we know that John learned this from Greek philosophy, but he incorporates it into his gospel and Christians accept it as a fact.

How can we accept this, which is an incredible allegation, that Jesus is the maning of life that is actually alive itself, that he was present before life existed, and that the meaning of life took on flesh without physical proof?

When one met Jesus, one did not see the meaning of life. The only thing that the disciples saw was the carpenter’s son, Jesus the Nazarene.

Jesus never told John that he was the Logos. John does not say this. John states it as a fact that comes from him. This is wisdom that has been revealed to him.

If you accept this postulate of John’s without questioning the physical veracity, what is so difficult in accepting when John says that the body and blood of Jesus given as bread and wine are another sign or proof of who Jesus is?

Don’t forget, John was a Jew. This is not Jewish theology or Jewish thinking. This is outside the parameters of Jewish thought and faith. What John did was use what he had received from his Jewish faith, from Christ and tell it using his Greek logic.

There is no symbollism, as it was not John’s intent that either the Logos or the Eucharist be understood as symbols. He presented them as fact and did not bother to explain either. Observe that he offers no explanation for he belief that Jesus is the Logos. We do not see in any of Jesus teachings a claim to be pre-existent or to be the meaning of life. Jesus never said this.

Yet, we Christians believe this. If we can believe this without evidence, it is not too difficult to make the leap in faith and believe in the Eucharist without physical evidence, unless you really want to debate all of John’s claims about Jesus and about the signs (proofs).

Please do not bring up the symbollism argument again, because it does not fly. John was clear that these were signs, not symbols. He deliberately uses a very clear Greek philosophical word that means something completely different from symbol.

John was a mystic and mystics often see beyond that which us typical people can see. Can you accept that?

If you insist on saying symbol while John insists on saying signs, then one of you is being stubburn.

**I’ll ask again, does anyone else understand what I’m talking about or am I being too obscure? **

 

[CentralFLJames]

JR - I am no scholar in Greek writing mechanisms but clearly you are. What you say makes profound sense and contributes yet another brilliant coin into the treasure of faith, intellect and scholarship held in trust deposit by the faithful of the Catholic Church. Nothing on the planet comes within light years of proximity to the level of scholarship, philosophical understanding, intellectualism, knowledge, teaching authority, tradition and faith in God that the Catholic Church has. If somone misses the truth of the saving grace of The Eucharist or receives it unworthily one misses Eternal Life. That divide is unassailable by the most stubborn and determined attacks on reason and faith. Let us hope that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the minds and hearts of those who seek the Truth with a sincere heart.

Thanks!

James

 

[johnnydigit]

There is no symbollism, as it was not John’s intent that either the Logos or the Eucharist be understood as symbols. He presented them as fact and did not bother to explain either. Observe that he offers no explanation for he belief that Jesus is the Logos. We do not see in any of Jesus teachings a claim to be pre-existent or to be the meaning of life. Jesus never said this.

Yet, we Christians believe this. If we can believe this without evidence, it is not too difficult to make the leap in faith and believe in the Eucharist without physical evidence, unless you really want to debate all of John’s claims about Jesus and about the signs (proofs).

**I’ll ask again, does anyone else understand what I’m talking about or am I being too obscure? **

thanks! clear as glass.

 

[toaslan]

JR, I understand, I think, and what you say is really good. I agree with the post which speculated that PC is giving the answers he already has handy; for new or deeper material–maybe he will have to think it over.

PC, I just wish it seemed you were thinking it ALL over.

PC, your reliance upon J6:63 to save you from having to take Our Lord literally–that reliance seems to stand despite all the thread’s efforts to show you, among other things, what Jesus means by “The Flesh” and the entirely different thing He means by “My Flesh”–a distinction which shortcircuits a non-literal interpretation.

Thanks to everybody, for your good work on this thread!

 

[maryj]

DOES ANYONE ELSE UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT AND HOW JOHN IS WRITING?

**I’ll ask again, does anyone else understand what I’m talking about or am I being too obscure? **

Crytal clear, thank you for taking the time to answer in such a clear and concise manner. Let’s give PC some time. It’s a lot to process. God Bless.

 

[PC_Master]

Once again I’ll clarify (lest it be thought otherwise) that I’m not intentionally ignoring any specific person or point – I just don’t have time to respond to everything. I’m thus responding to the points I feel to be the most reasonable, relevant, and important to my understanding of the topic. No offense is intended to anyone.

It is both

As I said, there is no passage in which Jesus says that you must do X and Y. He says, if you do X, you will have eternal life. Then he says if you do Y, you will have eternal life. If we assume Jesus isn’t a liar, and we also assume that there are not multiple and distinct ways to heaven, then we cannot possibly conclude that both are required unless they be different ways of expressing the exact same concept (and thus by fulfilling either of the two, you are actually fulfilling both).

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.

And yet to say “whoever drinks water daily will not die” would be a lie. For while each one is required, it alone is not sufficient for life. We must both eat and drink to live. Where did Jesus say “and” in that passage to connect both as separate and distinct concepts?

Consider this statement: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” Does this mean that “belief and baptism” are “the same”?

Nope. Since belief will save you, belief and baptism, or belief and X, or adding any of a multitude of other things will save you. But only the belief is required.

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?

It’s very simple. How was circumcision symbolic of the covenant between God and Abraham? How was the passover lamb a symbol of God’s salvation to his people (enduring to the present day)? The entire point of symbols is to use something physical to represent something else which may or may not be physical. Just as a line on a page can be a symbol of a highway, though in reality they are very, very dissimilar, God used many things as symbols of others.

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.

I actually would draw a line of separation between John 6 and the last supper. In John 6, what do we see? “I am the bread which is come down from heaven.” Jesus was the vine, with us the branches, symbolizing that we should be connected to him and bear fruit from him. Likewise, Jesus is the bread of heaven, which fulfills our spiritual hunger (like the manna did for the physical hunger of the wandering tribes of Israel).

Now, at the last supper, what we see is not so much new symbolism being created, as it is redefinition. I believe we all agree that Jesus said he was instituting a new covenant, right? Well, as you know, with the Old Covenant, the Passover symbolized the salvation of God’s people (from their Egyptian slave masters). To explain the Passover, the people who escaped from Egypt were to tell their children how God saved them. The lamb was a big part of that story, and signified obedience to their creator.

Likewise, Jesus, in creating the New Covenant, saved the world from their sins. Thus, Jesus took a ritual feast well known to be representative of salvation, and gave further symbolism to signify his new salvatory work. Jesus said “do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me”. He wished for them to not simply remember God’s salvatory works in Egypt, but also the salvation of the New Covenant.

It fits so well, and to me just seems like exactly how God would do things.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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…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.

There are a couple of things I’d point out here:

1. I don’t necessarily hold to the traditional story of Hanukkah. That’s a topic for another time, however.
2. More importantly, what we are discussing is transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ every time the Eucharist celebration happens in a Roman Catholic Church. These supposed “Eucharistic miracles” which have been reported every now and then are an entirely separate issue. These are clearly not representative of most Roman Catholic masses. Thus, even if you proved these to be legit, that doesn’t prove transubstantiation. You simply cannot compare these occasional events (which claim visible evidence) with the regular occurrence that claims real effects without evidence.

(Oh, and by the way, if there was a physical, observable transformation happening at every mass, I wouldn’t be denying that it happens.)

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!

Stories are interesting, but not always valid.

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.

I wish you would actually try to “put yourself in my shoes”, so to speak, and really consider the positions I hold and am exploring, rather than supposing that I just have a bone to pick with the RCC. Such bias seems to be found in every religious group, making me all that much more grateful for those who understand that I am genuinely seeking the truth (whatever or wherever it may be).

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.

And yet according to you guys, it would be improper to take it if I don’t hold to your belief in transubstantiation, would it not? Oh, and I have been to Roman Catholic masses, and I’ve spoken to many who have been to them, and every one of them agrees that visibly, there is no change. If you can show me any sort of tangible benefit that proves the validity of the claim, that’s fine. If you can show me explicitly where in scripture or the earliest of church history (please start a new thread for that, however) a symbolic meaning is denied and a literal interpretation of scripture is shown, I’d love to hear it.

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

Disbelief in a falsity is a good thing. As for “false private interpretation of scripture”…how do I know my interpretation is false, and that yours is right? This is all rhetorical positioning which doesn’t help clarify the truth or falsity of any position.

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.

You are again asserting that the disciples never took the words symbolically, but that is the very question I’m trying to ascertain an answer to! I don’t believe anyone here actually saw or heard Jesus speak those words, after all, so you can only assume they happened in a particular way. Let’s try to focus more on empirical data.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Well, aside from that I don’t pick-and-choose anything, I’d like to know where you think I’m doing all this picking and choosing. I’m not asserting that part of a passage is literal, and another part is figurative.

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?

I don’t “insist”. However, it doesn’t seem to fit in with what I know of Christ’s behavior for him to have performed so many miracles and shown physical evidence, and yet for perhaps the most important miracle, to provide none at all.

I don’t hold that Christ can’t be in the bread. I simply hold that Christ did not choose to do it this way. His character and behavior in the gospels shows that for every miracle, while the means to accomplish it were indeed miraculous, any physical change that might be claimed by someone who witnessed the miracle actually was physical and was observable.

Jesus didn’t just hold up the five loaves, say some words, and then suddenly have everyone no longer hungry, without any evidence of alteration to the loaves (though he certainly could have). And even if he had, that would still be a real, observable change.

Show me a single miracle that claims any change to something physical which provides no observable evidence thereof.

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.

With baptism, you say it is a spiritual transformation right? Therefore, there would obviously be no physical evidence of it! The spirit is not the flesh, though both are real. If you likewise said that the Eucharist was a transformation by which the spirit of Christ was placed with the physical bread, I wouldn’t be arguing for a physical proof.

However, you claim that the Eucharist constitutes a physical (“fleshly”) transformation into the flesh of Christ.

This is why one should not compare apples with oranges. They don’t mix well! If you’re going to draw a parallel, it should be a complete parallel, not a pick-and-choose-certain-bits parallel.

Just who says that there must be a visible “change” that must be seen to ratify a miracle?

No one. I certainly wouldn’t say that. A miracle of spirit, by definition, would have no physical signs. However, a miracle of the flesh (the bread) cannot possibly be called such without physical 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?

Those effects are very tangible and observable, and thus constitute evidence.

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.

Care to be more specific? Can you claim something that is demonstrably the result of the Eucharist? I can swing a string, and show you the effects are directly tied to the string and my actions on it (rather than just some unknown factor).

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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?

No. I’m saying they have faith in something which is not true. They believe without seeing, which in itself is not necessarily bad, but which is dangerous if done blindly.

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?

I don’t recall saying “where in scripture does it talk about me changing physically”. I asked where salvation says that. Yes, it says I am changed spiritually (as you have covered), but does it say that I’m a physically different person? Not at all, and thus I would not expect to see physical evidence.

Also, if one were to claim a physical resurrection, without there ever being (at any point in time, even at the last day) any physical evidence of it, it would seem to me that such a claim is not legit. However, that’s more a prophetic statement, so we should not expect to see it happen just yet.

Again - why are you so physically fixated on “seeing” things when most everything in the Bible is about Spiritual matters?

Many things are spiritual, yes, as is the symbolism of the last supper (aka Passover). I’m not fixated on physically seeing everything – just physical things.

I’ll try to get to more of these posts tonight.

 

[JReducation]

thanks! clear as glass.

Thanks Johnny. That was very nice of you.

 

[JReducation]

PC

Do you believe in Johns report that Jesus is the LOGOS?

Do you know that the LOGOS means the meaning of existence?

Do you know that Jesus never claimed to be the LOGOS?

Do you believe that the LOGOS was pre-existent?

Do you believe that the LOGOS became flesh?

Can you or anyone prove this?

Can anyone prove that Jesus is the physical meaning of life?

Did John attempt to explain where he got this from?

Did John insist that his disciples believe that Jesus is the same LOGOS that the Greeks believed to be the meaning of life?

Was John speaking in symbols when he calls Jesus the incarnate meaning of life?

How can the meaning of life, which is pre-existent, become incarnate and how can anyone prove that this was Jesus? No one saw it happen. We have only John’s word for it.

Please take the whole of the above into consideration and don’t break it down and select a piece. Becasue it was not written in pieces. John wrote it as single idea.