Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[maryj]

I just want to piggy-back on what you have said. I have given PC a great deal of historical information on how John wrote his Gospel and what words mean in John’s Gospel. PC has ignored every one of those posts. Go back and check for yourself.

This tells me that I’m dealing with someone who is not interested in real scholarship, but in debating. This is why I posted that THIS IS NONSENSE.

Has anyone here noticed that the Catholic Church does not debate? Observe, that even on such serious issues as abortion, the Church does not debate. It states its position. If someone challenges that position, the Church restates it. There is never a debate.

You will never find theologians, deacons, priests, bishops or other well trained Catholics engaged in debates with non-believers. They only debate in university classrooms.

The reason for this unspoken policy has to do with the dignity of Catholicism. You must protect the Church’s dignity. To stoop to the level of debate that is less than scholarly is beneath the dignity of the Church.

We observe this in the Gospels. Jesus did not engage in debates. He had many conversations with non-believers. He made his point. He didn’t stand around and waste time. His attitude was “take it or leave it.”

In a simplistic way of looking at him, he was kind of cocky, but I say that in a good sense.

I can hear and SEE your frustration. but yet I know as an early lurker on these boards, you have given many, many, people information they have never heard before. So thank you for your patience and time. I for one have learned much from your posts. If there wern’t ever these debates going on, these threads would be limited at best. And one last comment, I used to think when we said the creed at Mass that it always sounded a little cocky when we got to…
We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church…
I made that comment to a friend who is a priest and he said…
“Take it or leave it”
I have chosen to take it. Thanks again for all the great teaching.

 

[PNEUMA]

Has anyone here noticed that the Catholic Church does not debate? Observe, that even on such serious issues as abortion, the Church does not debate. It states its position. If someone challenges that position, the Church restates it. There is never a debate.

You will never find theologians, deacons, priests, bishops or other well trained Catholics engaged in debates with non-believers. They only debate in university classrooms.

The reason for this unspoken policy has to do with the dignity of Catholicism. You must protect the Church’s dignity. To stoop to the level of debate that is less than scholarly is beneath the dignity of the Church.

Google Results 1 - 100 of about 12,800

google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Catholic+debate&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

 

[JReducation]

Google Results 1 - 100 of about 12,800

google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Catholic+debate&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Observe several details.

The word debate in most of these links that you sent is used in place of the word discussion. This is a legitimate use of the word. It’s OK, because you are discussing two different points of view.

I looked at some of the links. The ones that wer by true scholars were void of dispute. They follow the rules that have been established for debating more than a century ago. Those rules are not followed on this thread.

Those who do not follow those rules, on these links, are lone rangers out there trying to make a point.

In addition, the debates that are sponsored by the Catholic Church take place in a formal Catholic setting such as a university or research setting, not on a website. They have been transcripted to a website so they can be shared.

Finally, if we follow the example set by Church theologians, clerics, religious educators and hierarchy, they do not engage in debates, in formal ones with rules of how one will interact, what the context is and what is allowed or not allowed to be discussed. The official Catholic form of debate has very strict rules of engagement. That’s why it’s usually limitted to those in academic environments, because they are trained in those rules. Often, what you see outside of these enviornments is persuasive arguing. Church authorities have no problem with persuading, but they have a serious problem with arguing. I’m not sure if this makes it clearer. This does not mean that individuals don’t go out and do their thing; of course we do. Unfortunately, we often mess it up.

When I was in grad school getting my degree in theology, one thing that was impressed upon us was that debate was for the sake of scholarship, not faith. Faith was handed down by scripture, tradition and the teaching magisterium. Our job as students of theology was to debate to sharpen the mind in order to understand faith. This is an Ambrosian teaching. Theology is faith seeking understanding. It is not a battle or competition to win an argument, because there is no argument. Faith has spoken. It is what it is.

We debate or discuss to understand what is, not what we think it should be.

 

[JReducation]

I can hear and SEE your frustration. but yet I know as an early lurker on these boards, you have given many, many, people information they have never heard before. So thank you for your patience and time. I for one have learned much from your posts. If there wern’t ever these debates going on, these threads would be limited at best. And one last comment, I used to think when we said the creed at Mass that it always sounded a little cocky when we got to…
We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church…
I made that comment to a friend who is a priest and he said…
“Take it or leave it”
I have chosen to take it. Thanks again for all the great teaching.

Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad to hear that someone has learned something from my posts. My intent is to share what I know and learn from what others know.

I’m never sure whether to be frustrated with those who come to these threads to impose what they believe, instead of what IS or with the Catholics who engage in these mind-games, instead of holding to the facts. Today, there is little reason for Catholics not to know the facts.

Once upon a time, study of theology was reserved for monks and seminarians. This is no longer the case. Any Catholic can take courses at their local Catholic college or university in theology. Parishes and diocese offer courses in scripture, systematic theology, mystical theology, Church history and catechetics. There are online courses, not to mention Catholic television and radio programs that teach theology. You can even study ancient languages to better understand scripture.

As an educator, I often become frustrated at the level of education among our people in the USA. We are excellent in matters of business and technology, but we are so weak in critical thinking, history, science and logic. These are important tools to understanding faith.

I liked the example that you give. “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” I find it stunning that so many Catholics do not know that the word “catholic” in the creed does not mean the Roman Catholic Church. It is the ancient Greek word καθολικός, which means universal. I don’t mean to impugn you. I’m just picking up your example, because it’s a good one.

While patience is a virtue, there is also another virtue that is called love. One has to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Love of self includes protecting one’s human and intellectual dignity by not engaging in silly arguments that are going nowhere. If we had a formal setting where we are asked to expose our views on this issue, without trying to persuade or convince the other person, just to inform and share, it would be a different situation. But what I am seeing here is that there is an attempt to persuade and justify at all costs. This to me offends the dignity of Catholicism or any faith. Faith does not need justification. Explanation and clarification is acceptable, justification is humiliating, not the same as humble.

I was born and raised Jewish. I converted to Catholicism, because like Judaism, Catholicism is based on history and scripture. Also, very much like Judaism, Catholicism does not subscribe to individual interpretations or beliefs. It bases its teachings on the collective experience of the Church. There is not private interpretation in either Jewish or Catholic theology. What I have seen in this thread is a great deal of individual interpretation of the theology of the Eucharist for the purpose of convincing one or two people that their individual interpretation is wrong. I am of the opinion that this leads nowhere. Therefore, I subscribe to Ambrose idea; theology should help us understand our faith, end of story. If someone doesn’t understand, even after a clear theological exposition, that’s their problem not the problem of the Church. Ambrose was very clear on this.

I guess I have to be more patient.

 

[utunumsint]

While patience is a virtue, there is also another virtue that is called love. One has to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Love of self includes protecting one’s human and intellectual dignity by not engaging in silly arguments that are going nowhere. If we had a formal setting where we are asked to expose our views on this issue, without trying to persuade or convince the other person, just to inform and share, it would be a different situation. But what I am seeing here is that there is an attempt to persuade and justify at all costs. This to me offends the dignity of Catholicism or any faith. Faith does not need justification. Explanation and clarification is acceptable, justification is humiliating, not the same as humble.

I was born and raised Jewish. I converted to Catholicism, because like Judaism, Catholicism is based on history and scripture. Also, very much like Judaism, Catholicism does not subscribe to individual interpretations or beliefs. It bases its teachings on the collective experience of the Church. There is not private interpretation in either Jewish or Catholic theology. What I have seen in this thread is a great deal of individual interpretation of the theology of the Eucharist for the purpose of convincing one or two people that their individual interpretation is wrong. I am of the opinion that this leads nowhere. Therefore, I subscribe to Ambrose idea; theology should help us understand our faith, end of story. If someone doesn’t understand, even after a clear theological exposition, that’s their problem not the problem of the Church. Ambrose was very clear on this.

I guess I have to be more patient.

I hope you don’t mind my piping in here, but I’ve gone a couple of rounds with certain Protestant brothers on a variety of theological and historical issues. The process of these debates have lead me to a greater appreciation of the Catholic faith, and its solid foundation in historical truth. In fact, in this very thread I’ve learned some new and creative ways of defending the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I probably would not have known them had it not been for certain provocative questions. Whether the questions were posed in good faith or not matters little to me. The resulting answers, I believe, further serve to illustrate the trurth of Catholic claims.

As for the matter of humiliation…yes. I agree with you that this whole process is humiliating, often displaing a profound lack of respect for others…but consider that our Lord emptied himself, became man, and died on the cross for our salvation. Consider that Paul was beaten with fourty minus one lashes three times on behalf of the truth of the Gospels. If you want to see courage and humility (humiliation), just imagine what Paul’s back looked like.

Just to sum things up, I have to believe that this kind of humiliation bears much fruit for the faith.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JReducation]

I’ve gone a couple of rounds with certain Protestant brothers on a variety of theological and historical issues. The process of these debates have lead me to a greater appreciation of the Catholic faith, and its solid foundation in historical truth. In fact, in this very thread I’ve learned . . . .

As for the matter of humiliation…

. . .but consider that our Lord emptied himself, became man, and died on the cross for our salvation. Consider that Paul was beaten with fourty minus one lashes three times on behalf of the truth of the Gospels. If you want to see courage and humility (humiliation), just imagine what Paul’s back looked like.

Just to sum things up, I have to believe that this kind of humiliation bears much fruit for the faith.

Ut

I do not doubt for a moment that one learns through discussions. I’ve been an educator all of my life and have used discussion as a tool for teaching, including the teaching of theology.

As to humiliation, let’s examine this very carefully. It is one thing to exercise humility voluntarily as Jesus did. This was his Father’s will. Yet, if we observe very closely the interrogation by Pontius Pilate, Jesus remains silent. He maintains an air of dignity. When Pilate slips up and attempt to claim that he has the power to put him to death, Jesus speaks ups. He reminds him that this power has been given to him from above. Therefore, Jesus does not accept that Pilate has innate authority over him, but only the authority given to him (Pilate) by God. We see, very clearly, that Jesus will not submit to the ramblings of an idiot and will not spare him the embarrassment of being put in his place. He does this throughout the Gospels with many of the Jewish leaders. With some he dialogues and explains things so that they can understand. In another cases he calls them idiots and hypocrites and puts them in their place. Do not confuse Jesus’ humility with humiliation. Never does Jesus accept humiliation without reminding the person that they are not in control, but he is, as he did with Pilot. Being humble and humiliating self are different.

As to Paul, we have a similar scenario. In the case of the beating to which you refer, Paul is a prisoner. He is beaten, but he does not submit to their authority, only to their physical power. When he argues with Peter and the other Apostles, Paul makes it clear that he too is an Apostle. He will not take second place, because he was not one of the original Apostles. He defends his position with dignity and forceful words.

When we look at the Church through history, she has always maintained its regal place in the world. The Church still refers to the Pope as Holy Father or Supreme Pontiff and to Cardinals as princes. In more recent times where people have invited bishops and cardinals to debate issues such as abortion or gay marriage and other such topics, the position of the Church is the same. We do not debate. We have no reason to explain ourselves to anyone, because we have the fullness of revelation. Take it or leave it. The Church’s only obligation is to teach the truth, not justify it.

Not long ago, I believe it was the New York Times, that interviewed Archbishop Chaput, OFM,Cap on abortion. The reporter asked some very pointed questions. Had it been in this thread, it would have provoked a response that would have then provoked another response and so forth. The Archbishop’s responses were very theological and philosophical. In fact, he used language that the reporter and average person who read the interview probably didn’t even understand. This is a very deliberate strategy that a good theologian uses. He tells the truth, but leaves no room for the other person to respond without looking ridiculous. Of course no one likes to look silly. In the case of this interview, the reporter simply moved on to the next question when he didn’t know what the Archbishop was talking about. Unfortunately, the interview was edited and it sounded as if the Archbishop has said something entirely different, but that’s another story.

The point here is that dialogue, discussion and debates with rules are good tools for learning. Humility is also a Christian virtue. But humility does not require one to humiliate himself by lowering oneself to the level of ignorance. One bends over to pick up the other person so that both can stand. When the other person refuses to stand, then one returns to a standing position. If we engage with a non-believer, it is a good thing as long as learning is happening. Otherwise, the engagement is nothing more than entertaining the other person’s narcissistic desire for our attention. The Church makes a distinction between humility as a virtue and humiliation as an evil. The Church is not at the service of narcissism.

 

[Catholic_Author]

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?
2. If it is the spirit that benefits, and not the flesh, then what happens to the physical existence of the bread and wine is of no consequence. In fact, all that matters is the spiritual attachment, not what is physically (in our world of reality, as opposed to spiritual reality) happening. Is this not correct?

PC Master,

Two points that are tied into each other:

1. Spirit does not automatically equate to a figurative interpretation
2. To say that the body is of no consequence because it is flesh is quite like the Gnostic belief that all flesh is intrinsically evil. Christ’s point is very different. He says that the reason the body is of no avail is that it must have a spirit or a soul otherwise it is dead.

Let me explain these two:

It is correct that Jn 6:63 (and 64) is a key to understanding the whole chapter but it is an incorrect inference to say that “spirit” means “symbol”. By saying that His words are spirit and life Jesus is not saying that they are figurative. The next line (64) shows that belief in what He has said is a necessary element. So what Jesus is saying is that just as the spirit is the life of the body so too are His words the life of the believer. In fact, the truth He is conveying has a meaning opposite of what you are saying. He says that His words are life; actual life not symbolic life. His words, since they are spirit, are the real and animating principle of believers. In this way we see that Jesus’ words are the spirit to the body of believers and although this is mystical it is not symbolic but very real. The body of believers can do nothing apart from the words of Christ that give it life and the words in this chapter that are laterally life giving are that His Flesh is real flesh and His Blood real blood. He says, those who do not believe and do this teaching do not have life in them. It makes sense this way because those who do not believe this teaching (which as the word of Christ is life and spirit) are a body without a spirit. A body without a spirit would be dead. That is why the flesh is of no avail… because the flesh without the word of God has no life. The Body and Blood of Christ, since they are the central points in Christ’s discourse here, are the life of true believers. Those who believe and do this are the living body of Christ because they believe and because they receive the actual life in the Body and Blood of Christ as the Eucharist exactly as His life giving words say. The Catholic Church claims to be the visible body of Christ, but we know that you will not recognize it and that is why you must take a symbolic stance. To recognize true spirit and true life in this chapter of John necessitates recognizing a true body.

Now I have a question for you. Can you substantiate your claim that spirit equates to figurative?

 

[Catholic_Author]

PC Master,

and the words in this chapter that are laterally life giving

Ooops, that should read “literally” not “lateraly”.

 

[Emil]

Dear PC and all othes who doubt the God-given authority and divine guidance possessed by the Catholic Church:

I love this site, but only stop by to look around once in a while when I get an email.

I apologize on behalf of my fellow Catholics who’ve lost their patience with you. As you might realize, we’re only human and will not always be able to keep our composure, especially on matters pertaining to Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

My question to you is, why doubt so deeply the authority of the Church when, in Matthew 16:13-19, you read the following:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

What do you believe Jesus was doing here? Was he founding the Catholic Church and endowing it with the power to bind and unbind, as has been the belief of Catholics since the beginning, or do you belief something else? Do you not belief when Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? And if so, why do you doubt the teaching authority of the Church. You also have to remember Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the command to go out and preach the Word even unto the ends of the earth. Who was he addressing? What other religion can claim to have received, directly from Jesus Christ, its authority? And there is so much more. So, why do you doubt and why do you rule out the God-given authority the Catholic Church received, the Church who preserved the Scriptures and Oral Tradition (from which the New Testament sprang) against heresies through the centuries? I believe these are questions well suited to be meditated on.

May God bless you, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and may he send the Holy Spirit upon you and your loved ones. If you continue to doubt, please pray every day that God show you the way, and he will. It took him nearly thirty years with me, but I never gave up praying, nor did I ever give up hope; and he led me back to the Catholic Church.

Best regards,
Emil

 

[abucs]

I think such posts as this are welcome and add to discussion which keeps us all thinking.

In saying that though i think we need to put into perspective the weight of our own thoughts when we read English printed bible 2000 years after the events thinking we can be certain in understanding difficult passages.

I think it’s good to study and ask questions but we should realise that our own selves are cut off from the writers language and their presence and history.

In such circumstances we should give more weight to the teaching of the early church by reading not only those letters that the Catholic Church decided to include in the bible but the other early letters as well. Many of these are very explicit on the real presence and for such a ‘difficult’ teaching there does not seem to be much arguement among the early Christian leaders’ letters.

Seeing as though one reason some of the letters were included by the Catholic Church in the bible were to clear up any disagreements on important teachings, and the other letters on the eucharists (besides Paul) were not included, it would see that there was no disagreement by the church at the time of the bible collation as well as from times in the early church from which the letters come.

I would suggest we should put a lot of weight on the (near) universal acceptance of the real presence by the early church.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t look into it, just that we should not be too carried away with our own thoughts, which, lets face it, can easily be bent to what we want to see.

For the eucharist to not be the presence we have to account for 1500 years upto and including Luther where it was clearly universally accepted.

For such an important part of the mass instigated at the last supper by Jesus, we then have to look at God who let us get it wrong and then didn’t bother telling us until (and only a minority then) until the post reformation. Jesus claim that he would be with us until the end of the age with the spirit leading us into all truth then looks quite an empty promise IMHO on such an important question.

My view of God is that he is still with us and will not let us stray too far from the truth on such an important thing as the blood of the everlasting covenant.

Respect.

 

[Catholic_Author]

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

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

This logic is flawed at its major premise, “If Jesus himself said that the words he’d been speaking are of spiritual significance.” This is assumptive. It is your private interpretation that when Jesus says His words are spirit that he means they are not material. He did not use a phrase that can rightfully be expressed as “spiritual significance”. Instead what He is saying is that His words are life giving just as a spirit is to a body. Look at your amplified quote and complete the amplification as you had begun it:

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

The logical conclusion is not that his words are spiritual, meaning they have no substance, but that they are life giving meaning that they have greater substance, the substance of life. As we are about to see this is true even though that substance is not visible. Now look at verse 62, which to many seems out of place but actually clarifies my argument:

• What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? *

Jesus says this because the disciples seem shocked and is explaining to them that it is all true and real even if it is not visible. To paraphrase Jesus is asking, “would seeing me, ascend back into heaven from where I came help you to believe that I am the bread from heaven?” Of course they will see this in Acts 1:9 and here Jesus is saying that the spirit although it is not visible is more real than the body and has more power since a body by itself does nothing. The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a direct parallel. Although the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is not visible, that is it is not able to be sensed, it is truly more real and more powerful than just ordinary bread. In other words it is super-substantial or more than ordinary substance. That is because its substance has been changed into Christ’s being. Since the Eucharist is Him, and He is life, the Eucharist is life.

The spirit is every bit as real if not more real than the body and the Eucharist is more real than bread. Look at the Greek word translated as “daily bread” in the Our Father prayer of both Mat and Lk. They use a word which occurs nowhere else in all of scripture, and is not a common word of the people. In a sense it was invented in order to explain what Jesus actually said. That word is epiousios which means supersubstantial. It does not mean non-substance or beyond substance, it means everything that substance is plus more.

I believe this answers the challenge to shown through scripture that spiritual does not mean figurative it means extra real.​

 

[JKing]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so if someone has already made this point, I apologize.

The OP said he did not want any evidence given by the Early Church Fathers. This is unreasonable. Why would you artificially limit your means of understaning the intent of the authors of scripture?

If you were trying to understand something that was written a hundred years ago, wouldn’t you be interested in seeing what those who read it at the time thought about it?

True, the ECF are not infallible or inspired, but their amplifications of the texts in question are valuable in trying to understand the original meaning.

The church clearly believed in transubstantiation from the very beginning. The evidence is overwhelming.

The whole notion that you can take the bible, in a vacuum, and learn exactly what Jesus was teaching is ludicrous. The bible is useful, accurate, infallible, inspired, etc. The one thing it is not is complete. It was never intended to be the sole source of Jesus’ teaching.

If Jesus had intended the bible to be an instruction manual, don’t you think he did a pretty poor job of it? Should we baptize? How? Do we confess our sins? To whom? Do we worship? How? What is prayer? How do we pray? What must I do to be saved?

Why are there so many different answers to these questions? Because different people are all trying to follow the “bible alone”.

Outside of the institution that deliviered the bible to us, it is, at best, an interesting collection of writings about an unusual man who lived 2,000 years ago.

What a sad and terrifying thing to see. People trying to take a book and deliver God’s revelation completely cut off from the institution that God established to do the job. The devil is dancing, for sure.

Lord Have Mercy on
-]God Bless/-] ^ America

 

[JReducation]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so if someone has already made this point, I apologize.

The OP said he did not want any evidence given by the Early Church Fathers. This is unreasonable. Why would you artificially limit your means of understaning the intent of the authors of scripture?

If you were trying to understand something that was written a hundred years ago, wouldn’t you be interested in seeing what those who read it at the time thought about it?

True, the ECF are not infallible or inspired, but their amplifications of the texts in question are valuable in trying to understand the original meaning.

The church clearly believed in transubstantiation from the very beginning. The evidence is overwhelming.

The whole notion that you can take the bible, in a vacuum, and learn exactly what Jesus was teaching is ludicrous. The bible is useful, accurate, infallible, inspired, etc. The one thing it is not is complete. It was never intended to be the sole source of Jesus’ teaching.

If Jesus had intended the bible to be an instruction manual, don’t you think he did a pretty poor job of it? Should we baptize? How? Do we confess our sins? To whom? Do we worship? How? What is prayer? How do we pray? What must I do to be saved?

Why are there so many different answers to these questions? Because different people are all trying to follow the “bible alone”.

Outside of the institution that deliviered the bible to us, it is, at best, an interesting collection of writings about an unusual man who lived 2,000 years ago.

What a sad and terrifying thing to see. People trying to take a book and deliver God’s revelation completely cut off from the institution that God established to do the job. The devil is dancing, for sure.

Lord Have Mercy on
-]God Bless/-] ^ America

JKing – add to what you have already eloquently said, that the same Church who gave us the teaching of transubstantiation is the Church who gave us the scriptures. First came the Church, then came the Bible.

Why would the early Church and its descedants believe one thing and say another in the gospels? It makes no sense. John wrote what he believed, what was revealed to him by Christ and his mystical experiences after the resurrection.

Look at John’s prologue. He speaks about the Logos being Jesus. Is this a symbol? Not to John. To him it was literrally real. Anyone who knows anything about Greek philosophy knows that the philosophy of the Logos existed long before Jesus was born. However, John reflects on this philosophy and comes to the realization that through some mystery, God had paved the way for the Greeks to receive the Good News. He tells us that Jesus is the Logos of which the Greek philosophers had written. He does not say that Jesus is like the Logos or that the Logos is a good symbol for Jesus. He gives Jesus all of the attributes of the Logos and the Logos all of the attributes of Jesus.

As you said, if you leave out the entire world around the gospels, you will then have a hard time justifying your faith in Jesus as the pre-existent Logos, because there is no definition for the Logos anywhere in the Bible. We had to use Greek philosophy to understand it.

To say that you want to prove the gospels using only the gospels is lacking in scholarship and unrealistic.

 

[ccfbob]

I too have not read the whole thread, but here is a summary of what I have learned.

1.In the beginning, Gen 14 vs 18 you will find Melchizedek a Priest of God most high. He offers Bread and Wine. You will see Melchizedek also in Ps 110 vs 3-4.

2.You will also see Melchizedek in the New Testament throughout Hebrews in Ch. 5, 6 and 7. Here Jesus is referred to being our High Priest FOREVER, on order of Melchizedek (The Bread and Wine High Priest of God). Remember now a Priest offers sacrifice (in this case Bread and Wine). The Lord Jesus is therefore is offering sacrifice forever, on our behalf, in Heaven, in the forms of Bread and Wine.

1. In John 6 vs 50 and thereafter, you will see Jesus use the Greek word tr¢wgw which means to chew, gnaw, devour, grind with the teeth (See John 6:54, 56-58; 13:18). This use does not seem symbolic, but very direct and very specific. Remember, He had been trying to explain this to the crowd for a while by now and they just were not getting it. He ramps the language here, and as you see, by verse 66, many left and no longer followed Him because of this. He never corrected them. He never said “Wait it is only a Parable, or a Symbol, or a Metaphor”, because they understood Him correctly. That explains the next scene: “Are you going to leave me too?” Not “boy, did they get mixed up, or boy are they dull, or hey ~ so you know it is a symbol, right?”

4.Also please notice there is another important parallel here, to abide. In vs 56 one will ‘abide’ with Him and He in us. Reminiscent of John 15 and the Vine and Branches. We need to abide. Does a symbol make you abide. Or does becoming one with the One you are abiding with (being grafted and pruned and groomed into).

5.Now let us jump to 1Cor10 vs 14 and after, here St Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for having been involved with idol worship and not to defile Jesus’ Body and Blood with that of the idols’. It also goes on to explain how we are one body in the one loaf. What loaf? Can a loaf of symbolic bread be one for a long period of time? Surely not, unless it is something supernatural, as in the Body of Christ, one, whole and complete.

6.How does this sacrifice get to us? How do we participate so as to cleanse us of our sins? “DO this in MEMORY of Me”. The “do this” has a very sacrificial meaning, especially to first century Jews. It is the same type of remembrance the Jews experience every time they celebrate Passover, even today. The Greek word an¢amnhsiv has a meaning of remembrance, a making present, a memorial, not a symbol.

7.Thus the Priesthood of Christ, with Christ as the High Priest, has ministerial Priests who here on earth offer sacrifice for Him. They offer Bread and Wine and using the words of the Word, and by His power, confect the Eucharist (thanksgiving in Greek) into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. All this by doing it in remembrance of Him… by His command.

8.One additional offering: 1Cor 11:23 and following. How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord if it is only a symbol?

Peace in Christ,
Bob

 

[Catholic_Author]

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?

PC Master,

No, what you are saying is neither clear nor symbolic, Nowhere in scripture can this teaching be found. I challenge you to point out even one passage where the word Spirit is universally understood to mean symbol.

Are we to understand from your interpretation that the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the holy symbol?! Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not real? Are you saying that the Spirit we received at baptism is only symbolic and not real?

If Jesus is speaking symbolically then how are we to act out what he asks? How are we to symbolically eat a symbolic body and symbolically drink a symbolic blood? And most importantly how is salvation (life) to come from this act if it is only a symbolic act? Is it merely a symbolic life we would receive? What would a symbolic life be and whatever that is of what value could it be to a real person? Do you mean to say that this is the message Jesus came in the flesh to teach us? There is no sense, no meaning and no purpose to your interpretation. It lacks both reason and faith.

 

[EphelDuath]

Here’s a question for people who reject the Real Presence.

Is there anything Jesus could have possibly said to convince you that he was being literal? “Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54). During the Last Supper, the words he used for the consecration means “this actually is my body.” He never says anything to indicate a metaphorical interpretation, yet Protestants still hear it in his words.

So I ask, is there any sentence that Jesus could’ve articulated to indicate that he wasn’t kidding? I get this kind of atmosphere where he says “guys, seriously, this is my body.” “Oh, he’s talking about faith.” “No, amen, I truly say, this is my body.” “Gotcha, he’s not kidding about this metaphor” “This ACTUALLY IS my body.” “Hyperbole !”

 

[Catholic_Author]

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

Close but not quite right. This verse can in fact be understood in a literal sense. Jesus is literally the bread from heaven because He is literally the Son of God.

 

[Catholic_Author]

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

Flesh is mentioned six times (verses 51-56 and 63) in this chapter. Five of these six instances are Jesus’ words. Spirit is only mentioned twice both times by Jesus and both in the same sentence, which also includes flesh. Clearly the flesh is important, especially when it is His flesh, because His flesh is made holy by His spirit. Jesus says this in verse 57:

“Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”

His flesh is different than the flesh which is of no avail. His flesh is life because He is one with the Father.

If the physical bread and wine were not changed in any way then they would remain ordinary bread and wine and then they certainly would be of no consequence, they would be merely a sign. But the Eucharist is different than the other sacraments in that it actually is the grace that it confers and not just a sign of that grace. The physical, the body, the flesh of Christ is of benefit because of His spirit. And that fits with Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, which says that it is not only the Body and Blood of Christ but also His Soul and Divinity… it is His entire being.

What Christian can call himself a Christian if he does not believe that Christ’s Flesh and Blood, indeed His very life is atonement for our sins? This is basic Christianity 101.

 

[to_see]

I’m new to all this but it seems to me that it boils down to faith. What does a person believe? It is interesting that in the OT the faithful “ate” the Pasqual lamb and not a “symbolic” lamb. Since Jesus is the High Priest offering Himself as the “Lamb of God” I believe he is telling us to literally eat Him.

 

[JKing]

I’m new to all this but it seems to me that it boils down to faith. What does a person believe? It is interesting that in the OT the faithful “ate” the Pasqual lamb and not a “symbolic” lamb. Since Jesus is the High Priest offering Himself as the “Lamb of God” I believe he is telling us to literally eat Him.

I hope you don’t mean that transubstantiation depends on belief, because it doesn’t. Jesus performs the miracle at the words of the priest, as long as he intends what the church intends, says the correct words correctly, and the matter is proper. Your faith or my faith–or even the priest’s faith–have nothing to do with it. If I don’t believe it, it’s still Jesus. If I go to a protestant church and believe their crackers and grape juice are Jesus, that doesn’t make it so.

So really, I guess protestants who argue that it’s a symbol are right. Their communion is only a symbol. They don’t have valid priesthood. But if they try to assert that the Holy Eucharist is a symbol, then we get a 200+ post thread.

Your point about the Passover Lamb is right on. If the enslaved Jewish family in Egypt that night had killed the lamb, splashed the blood and then ate lamb cookies, their first born son would be dead in the morning. In order to complete the passover you had to eat the lamb. (BTW I learned this from Scott Hahn a formerly virulently anti-catholic presbyterian minister, who was convinced of Catholic Truth by study of scripture. Now he’s a professor teaching theology and scriptural studies to seminarians.)

Lord Have Mercy on
-]God Bless/-] ^ America